Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by rvg:
Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Such laws have a history of being overturned by activist judges. The views of the electorate and the actions of the legislature can, and have been all cast aside by sympathetic judges. This amendment was insurance against that.
Contra the notion that this was primarily a defensive move meant to insulate NC from the depredations of activist judges:Such laws have a history of being overturned by activist judges. The views of the electorate and the actions of the legislature can, and have been all cast aside by sympathetic judges. This amendment was insurance against that.
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.
Originally Posted by Whacker:
You said it right there. I called bollocks.
How many bollocks? Two or four.You said it right there. I called bollocks.
"Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.
Stop being a bigot and actually read.
I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.
Originally Posted by :
So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.
You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.
The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.
Originally Posted by :
So you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?
There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point aboutSo you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by rvg:
Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
You two are arguing a pointless dead end.Does matter, because they were never "man, man" nor "woman, woman".
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
I'll get you started with wikipedia then:I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.
You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
The problem is that gays instead of demanding to be equal to us demand to be the same as us.This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I'll get you started with wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
Kudos - you managed to find actual examples - they aren't Muslim or Indian polygamous marriages, though. I note, however, that the examples there bear on family groups so that the marriage of one pair extends the marriage bond through the family. That is still very different to what is currently being proposed in the US and Europe.I'll get you started with wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage
Several cultures have over time had a wider understanding of marriage than "one man, one woman".
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:
At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.
I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.
This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.
If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?
There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.
They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.
Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.
This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.
The argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.
Also, it is of course completely irrelevant in this case, as the case here is a ban on all unions except the marriage between one man and one woman. So, civil unions go out the window.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
"Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.
I don't care what you try two wrap it up as, it's still a turd. You're stating that a homosexual man can't call his "life partner" his "husband", because YOU say it's not the same thing."Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.
Originally Posted by :
Stop being a bigot and actually read.
I have been reading exactly what you say. Thanks for that good laugh though, I enjoyed YOU calling ME the bigot here. As tribsey used to say, Stop being a bigot and actually read.
.Originally Posted by :
I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.
No, you just hate the fact that they want to be treated with the same human dignity, respect, and equality that any other human being should be. Go ahead though, keep talking. I love reading your explanations of why this isn't discrimination or degrading.I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.
Originally Posted by :
You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.
The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.
I jumped the gun there, forgetting you are English. Perhaps in England that is how they are viewed and handled. In the US, birth certificates are handled such that the legal parents are listed on the document. See here and here:You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.
The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption
See the part where it states an amended certificate is issued and the adoptive parents are assigned the roles, and this becomes the bottom line official document. This does contrast with how open adoption works in some states, in that the certificate is apparently not altered but the records are "sealed" and the child is prevented from gaining access to "identifying" information about their biological parents.
Originally Posted by :
There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point about
I don't deny there is a shred of validity to this, but historically speaking this is an extremely rare occurrence. You're getting into a different area now. Keep in mind that some countries allow marriage between first cousins, such as Japan. While there may be some social stigmas and legal limitations on this in other nations, what is defined as "incest" varies between cultures. I for one happen to find anything where a distant relative marries another to be pretty disgusting, but that's not my decision what others do with themselves.There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point about
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Contra the notion that this was primarily a defensive move meant to insulate NC from the depredations of activist judges:
Well that's a shame but I'm not surprised. Contra the notion that this was primarily a defensive move meant to insulate NC from the depredations of activist judges:
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
I'm still a little skeptical without personally diving into the language itself, but I hoped this was more an act of Federalism than a cultural reactionary movement.
@Lemur Because the thread is moving so fast.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.
If a word is meaningless I from now on demand that muslims must from now on adress Allah as god, same thing after all. Hey you brought them up it wasn't me. These guys just look at things differently than we do HT, it means something to them. Does it really mean anything to gays or is it just being gay that is important to them, no need to answer thatThe argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
Check this out, under "society and culture"Now you're trying to get off on a technicality. Call them plural, call them simultanious, whatever you wish, it doesn't change the fact that even today in most muslim countries one man can have more than one wife at the same time. It is clear what is expected of a man and what his duties are to each of his wives and it is legally defined.
Christian countries don't allow one man to have multiple wives, either one at a time or at the same time. Law doesn't recognize more than one wife, even though you may have your personal harem of 299 women. You're not obligated to any one of them, except the first.
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
I see no reason to allow Christian idea of marriage to stop me from allowing same sex couples a legally defined relationship, the same heterosexual couples are entitled to. Now, we may call it morriage instead of marriage, but that's just silly, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandi_people
Originally Posted by Fragony:
If a word is meaningless I from now on demand that muslims must from now on adress Allah as god, same thing after all. Hey you brought them up it wasn't me. These guys just look at things differently than we do HT, it means something to them. Does it really mean anything to gays or is it just being gay that is important to them, no need to answer that
No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.If a word is meaningless I from now on demand that muslims must from now on adress Allah as god, same thing after all. Hey you brought them up it wasn't me. These guys just look at things differently than we do HT, it means something to them. Does it really mean anything to gays or is it just being gay that is important to them, no need to answer that
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
Edit - Homosexuality is a natural occurence. Monogamous relationships in humans are not natural.
Originally Posted by Whacker:
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference noThere are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
Me? No, I'm 100% comfortable that I'm heterosexual. I can certainly look at other men and say, "That's one attractive dude.", without having any sexual feelings toward them. Since gay men do feel that way, there really isn't any difference between you or I eyeballing Scarlett Johannsen and having a strong urge to do the motorboat.But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
Originally Posted by Fragony:
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
And marriage defeats that purpose totally, since we should procreate like rabbits with any female that is willing and even if she is unwilling. Limiting ourselves to one woman and having actually to take care of the child is against our nature. (from male point of view exclusively)There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
You gotta make a thread. Please share.If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
What, you mean you haven't tried it?You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
I feel that LGBT people should have equal rights as any other person. The state must recognise their marriage in the same way it does that of a heterosexual couple. I have nothing against them. I confess I probably wouldn't be comfortable around them, but that's just me, and that's my own problem. Nothing justifies causing them distress just because someone else is uncomfortable about how they live their life, as long as they're not actively causing anyone harm.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO