CDZ Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The weakness of the OP remains simple: that natural morality does not govern our secular law.

In terms of culture, I believe that Keys is in error, because relationships and children have always occurred outside of marriage.

He might make an argument that traditionally marriage is one man and one woman, other than society before and coterminous to the Christian Age has had marriage and other relationship patterns besides one man and one woman.

To suggest that our society cannot move forward beyond the past makes reason stare.

 

[there4eyeM]

The op expresses what the generally accepted definition of the term, marriage, was before all the debate about changing the meaning. This furor was difficult for many of us to understand. We were all in favor of human rights. We understood that sexual orientation had no bearing on being human. Thus, homosexuals were entitled to all the rights of everyone else. Why the definition of marriage had to be changed to assure that escaped our comprehension, but the issue was so meaningless, and affected directly such a tiny part of the population, that making a fuss was silly.
'Marriage', as with every other word and concept, like 'rights', means what users of the language choose to understand when using it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has everyright to his definition. But the point is relativistic to assert that marriage is only one man one woman. Our human history has witnessed many variations of what constitutes marriage and the reasons for it.

I think this discussion needs more than the poster's relativistic assumption for support the claim.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It may be in the context of subjective religious dogma, but as a fact of civil contract law it is not.

 

[PratchettFan]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Marriage is the union of two equal, adult, and consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, measures intended to deny gay Americans access to marriage law are un-Constitutional, violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law lack a rational basis and are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support. Such laws “classif[y] homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The op expresses what the generally accepted definition of the term, marriage, was before all the debate about changing the meaning. This furor was difficult for many of us to understand. We were all in favor of human rights. We understood that sexual orientation had no bearing on being human. Thus, homosexuals were entitled to all the rights of everyone else. Why the definition of marriage had to be changed to assure that escaped our comprehension, but the issue was so meaningless, and affected directly such a tiny part of the population, that making a fuss was silly.
'Marriage', as with every other word and concept, like 'rights', means what users of the language choose to understand when using it.

So Words mean whatever anyone needs the words to mean?

You should know that under such circumstances, words become meaningless. Thus the value of language which is comprised of words becomes worthless.

For instance, the argument you offer holds that "We understood that sexual orientation had no bearing on being human."

When in reality, the human species is comprised of two genders... each bearing their respective sexuality. Therefore sexuality is; the natural physiological design of the species informs us that sexual orientation is fundamental to 'being human'.

This in no way alters the rights of homosexuals which are by default, equal to the rights of every other human and as with the rights of every other human those rights come with correlating responsibilities which must be born; which is to say that homosexual rights are limited by their correlating responsibilities, just like everyone else and not the least aspect of those responsibilities is that they cannot be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Through this, we can know that institutions which are inherently and specifically designed upon the human sexual standard, are not suited for those who sexual cravings deviate from the human sexual standard, thus it falls to the sexual deviant to bear the responsibility to not injure the means of those who do not seek to be affiliated with sexual deviancy, to not injure their right to not be affiliated with such.

With that said, I could not help but to notice that the argument you spent a lot of time speaking of rights, but seemed to have no awareness that absent responsibilities, there is no potential for the existence of rights.

Is it your position that individual responsibility has no affiliation with individual rights?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is contract law, written by the states and administered by state courts.

Marriage is the union of two equal, adult, and consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Based upon what?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts...

On what basis are sexually deviant citizens eligible for participation in an institution which is an extension of the human physiological sexual standard?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... measures intended to deny gay Americans access to marriage law are un-Constitutional, violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Sexual deviancy is BEHAVIORAL CHOICE... it is not a consequence of genetics which is beyond the control of the individual, for which the 14th amendment was SPECIFICALLY designed in amending the Constitution.

What your argument provides is that context is irrelevant to the US Constitution. Thus, Citizens who choose to spend money at the level equal to that of other people with more money, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law, in being provided with the same amount of money as other people.

.Measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law lack a rational basis

Nonsense. Marriage is the natural extension of the human physiological sexual standard. Therefore Marriage is suited to those who choose to comport their sexual behavior within the standards demonstrated by that standard.

The assertion that the incontestable defining attributes of marriage do not exist is a presentation of nothing short of delusion; which is to say an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. With this being noted as a matter of fact, not as a personal denigration.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys continues to flounder in his relativism in which he keeps asserting falsehood.

"Marriage" has been historically one man - one woman, one man - several women, polyandrous, and so forth and so on. It has varied. Natural law as expounded by him is merely a relativistic one-man argument for one particular definition. So what? Keys attempt to speak for God is ludicrous.

The definitions of marriage have continually changed and will continue to do so.

 

[RosieS]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

This is so 20th Century. Marriage is no longer defined by fertility and property.

People of the same gender are free to legally and publically commit to the one they love.

Reactionaries cannot stop progress.

Regards from Rosie

 

[bodecea]

Legal marriage (and in many cases religious marriage) is no longer restricted to one man/one woman. Now...if that is what YOU want to consider your marriage, more power to you.

 

[PratchettFan]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word. If there was any such thing as one's sacred word, we would not need legal contracts. A legal contract specifies the obligations and benefits derived from the interaction of two or more people or entities which is binding under the power of our legal system.

What you are calling marriage is just coupling, which can be done in a long term relationship or in a one night stand. Marriage is a legal contract under the law. It must be approved by the state and dissolved by the state. It is not under natural law nor based upon anything sacred. The parties can certainly treat it that way, but that is irrelevant to the part the state plays in it. If you personally believe marriage to be more than that, nothing stops you from treating it in any way you like. But that does not obligate others to do likewise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Needs to be said again, marriage "is not under natural law nor based upon anything sacred."

St. Keys the Relativist states that, "a Legal Contract . . . . is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return."

No. That is a marriage ceremony of a particular type. The ceremony is not legally binding at all.

Two people can stand in front of a judge, and she can say, "You want to get married?" and the couple can say "Yep" and the judge can say, "OK, jump over the broom" or "Bind your wrists together" or say "I do" or have them do all those things.

But . . . none of that matters legally. Only when the official and the partners and the witnesses sign the document does it become legal in the eyes of the state. God does not sign the contract.

St. Keys' relativistic interpretation of marriage is not required.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.