Gay Marriage

I don't think it has been made clear to me. I'm not so sure that a civil union in the US grants the same rights as a marriage. Does it?Here in a more enlightened country we solved the problem. And, so far, society has not collapsed.Of course, we also laugh at politicians who dare to let it be known they are younger earthers. And their party tries to hide the fact.

quote:

---

Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be "corrected" if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Chuck and Larry should raise little Bobbie into manhood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out gay. And I have to ask if this is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie.

---

Being raised by heterosexual couples didn't make the vast majority of homosexuals in society any more heterosexual. Why would homosexual couples have some special voodoo effect that turns their children gay?You say that being raised by homosexuals will turn otherwise-heterosexual kids gay, but don't address the fact that being raised by heterosexuals doesn't stop kids from growing up homosexual. You argue firmly that you know the natural causes of heterosexuality, but are baffled or unconvinced of the natural causes of homosexuality when your knowledge of the mechanisms of both are equally nebulous (and therefore, it must be a "choice" on some level). You argue that if it becomes medically possible to alter your sexuality, those who don't undergo this therapy will prove that homosexuality is a "choice," when at the same time you ignore the fact that this argument would make ethnicity a "choice" (due to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries).You're upholding intellectual double-standards and ignoring the other side of the equation. Logical fallacies aside, if you want people to open up and accept your views, you're going to have to grant the same courtesy and exercise the same capacity you want from us.

Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all? Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all?

quote:

---

I'm sorry to have to say this again: They already have the same rights I have. The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man. The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard.

---

"Church" isn't defined as a scientology building and "pants" isn't defined as being 28 inch waists. However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.False analogy.

quote:

---

"marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

---

Of course it is. And in many Southern states up until the 1960s marriage was also defined as the union of one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE.You don't see even the teeniest bit of irony there? Are you sure it is a false analogy? Defining marriage as only heterosexual marriage is a religion based decision. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Full stop.

Prove it.You are mistaken or ill-informed. The RIA prohibited the marriage of "non-whites" to whites. It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race.DOMA, on the other hand, does not explicitly restrict marriages like the RIA did so it doesn't violate the 14th. No, it wasn't. I quoted the actual legislators on why they passed DOMA in the other thread on gay marriage and it wasn't for religious reasons. I don't feel like digging it up right now so if you can support your assertion then prove that one too.

---

ABE:Nevermind, found it:From Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

​

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

​

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Do you really not understand the difference between a reason and a rationalization, or do you think that we don't? Either way . you're a moron.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

quote:

---

"Church" isn't defined as a scientology building and "pants" isn't defined as being 28 inch waists. However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

​

False analogy.

---

Well, I don't know about that.

quote:

---

For example, in late medieval France, the term affrrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070823110231.htm

quote:

---

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[8] Female-bodied two-spirits usually had sexual relations or marriages with only females.[9] In the Lakota tribe, two-spirits commonly married widowers; a male-bodied two-spirit could perform the function of parenting the children of her husband's late wife without any risk of bearing new children to whom she might give priority.[10] Partners of two-spirits did not take on any special recognition, although some believed that after having sexual relations with a two-spirit they would obtain magical abilities, given obscene nicknames by the two-spirited person which they believed held "good luck," or in the case of male partners, boosted their masculinity. Relationships between two two-spirited individuals is absent in the literature with one tribe as an exception, the Tewa.[11] Male-bodied two-spirits regarded each other as "sisters," it is speculated that it may have been seen as incestuous to have a relationship with another two-spirit.[12] It is known that in certain tribes a relationship between a two-spirit and non-two-spirit was seen on the most part as neither heterosexual nor homosexual (in modern day terms) but more "hetero-gender," Europeans however saw them as being homosexual. Partners of two-spirits did not experience themselves as "homosexual," and moreover drew a sharp conceptual line between themselves and two-spirits.[13]

---

Two-spirit - WikipediaSacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change. For the longest time in Europe, marriage was mostly a matter of political convenience and little more. There's nothing a priori about the term "marriage" that necessitates a heterosexual union.If expanding the definition and legal status of "marriage" has occurred in the past, there's nothing that morally or rationally keeps us from doing so now.

I could just as easily rationalize the antithesis. So how do I choose a side?I just go with my gut.Or I could choose the side of the people who aren't insulting me personally

I don't know, but I think it would have to. It's only a states-based issue anyway. I serious doubt that the SCOTUS will ever rule on the constitutionality of "gay marriage"...unless Social Security somehow becomes involved.”HM

I'm concerned with the 1000+ laws in the United States that refer to Marriage explicitly. When they were written, they were understood to be heterosexual unions. I'm not totally opposed to redefining Marriage. In fact, I think that it should be done to incorporate homosexual "marriages". I don't think that Marriage is currently unconstitutional and that it has to be changed. I think we should fully consider the ramifications before the change and minimize the loop-holes.

BeagleBob, really great article! But I also noticed what Tulchin says about a proving historical "gay marriage":

quote:

---

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrrés were using affrrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

---

Yes, I should think it would be impossible to prove. Nevertheless, this article is very unfriendly to the argument, my argument, that 2-sex marriage is the only tradition. Is my edit fair?”HM

So, you don't know the difference? You choose sides by sticking up for the rights of your fellow Americans and not for a supposed consistency in the meaning of a word. "Marriage" is a word. Homosexuals are humans. Sacrifice the word to the humans.Edited by lyx2no, : [qa]?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Yeah, I read all your fucking redundant stuff, but I don't agree with either the stuff or your opinion of it. So, I'm a bigot because I don't agree with you and your fucking stuff. But who's opinion counts for more? And how do you measure the difference? You, FO, can't get past the mindset that anyone who disagrees with you is a fucking bigot.”HM