Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Unkotare]

YOu and seawatch should look up the relevant law before you make such presumptions.

I've read the relevant law a million times. It's called the First Amendment.

A little naive, are we?.

"We"? I don't know about YOU, but I am not, no. Thanks for asking.

 

[RightThinking]

Even though I am single, I don't see what the big deal is. What others chose to call their union (whatever it may be composed of) does not have any bearing on the interpersonal relationships of others, in my opinion.

State licensing: Totally unnecessary.

Why should married people, straight or otherwise, get a better tax deal (among other special privileges afforded by the state) than you or I get?

When our government gives some "benefits" to any institution, it is essentially sending the message that the society, via the representatives, is endorsing and valuing it. The "institution" of marriage is one that should be endorsed and favored.

 

[Unkotare]

The "institution" of marriage is one that should be endorsed and favored.

Ok, sounds right. It should be because...?

 

[RightThinking]

Excellent article. I am a member of heritage.

The radical advocates of same-sex marriage keep insisting that they are being "denied" participation in a specific institution, and that is not true: They are demanding a change of the fundamental concept of an institution as we have known it in every culture of the world, and throughout human history.

The Supreme Court will make a ruling soon.

 

[RightThinking]

The "institution" of marriage is one that should be endorsed and favored.

Ok, sounds right. It should be because...?

A number of reasons:

1. The obvious "building block" of a civilization.

2. Children - The creation and nurturing of children.

3. The independence of family in relation to the government. Even more than the church or private schools, the family is the entity that stands relatively independent of government monitoring and control; parents will teach values and principles that may not necessarily align with the central authority. (Even though people like Hillary Clinton and Melissa Harris-Perry would want the government to rear our children....)

 

[Seawytch]

Excellent article. I am a member of heritage.

The radical advocates of same-sex marriage keep insisting that they are being "denied" participation in a specific institution, and that is not true: They are demanding a change of the fundamental concept of an institution as we have known it in every culture of the world, and throughout human history.

The Supreme Court will make a ruling soon.

In states we can legally marry, we are being denied equal access to the federal rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage.

The SCOTUS will be making two separate rulings. Do you know what the court challenges are? Are you familiar with either or both?

 

[RightThinking]

"In states we can legally marry, we are being denied equal access to the federal rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage."

Yes. It probably will not happen, but the ideal situation would be that the state fully recognizes the marriage, but the federal government does not. I believe it is within the bounds of the Constitution that the federal government cannot STOP the individual state from making such marriages legal, but that the federal government does not have to do so. I certainly hope this is true.

"The SCOTUS will be making two separate rulings. Do you know what the court challenges are? Are you familiar with either or both?"

Yes. Unfortunately, DOMA is likely to be declared unconstitutional, but I can hope that it remains constitutional. If it does not, we will have to live with it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Exactly. If you object to it being a legal, binding contract, sanctioned by the state and Federal government, just have a religious ceremony.

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

There isn't much point in a marriage that is not recognized by the community. You may as well just not get "married".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

 

[P@triot]

America has never arranged marriages - period.[/B]

Yes we have had such arrangements, but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Uh, no - we haven't. There is an exception to every rule, but just because a few people here and there do something it does not reflect on an entire society. It had NEVER been a part of U.S. culture to arrange marriages. Never. And that is an indisputable fact.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1.) It was just another way for government to take money from me (because libtards feel that already taking more than 50% of what I earn is not enough to quench their greed). Ask yourself why there needs to be an absorbent fee associated with the license? If I remember correctly, I think we paid about $60 (it's been a while, so forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate). I know damn well they aren't paying the clerk $60 per 5 minutes (or $720 per hour) to process the paperwork - so how exactly do they justify this? It's just another way to **** the American people for their socialism.

2.) What business is it of the government who I marry? My marriage is between myself, my wife, my church, and God. I see no room for government in there (nor should there be).

LOL! OMG marriage licenses aren't that expensive. You just didn't want to have a legally binding obligation to your wife! Come on man, who are you kidding? Instead of buying the cow with cash you wanted a mortgage you could walk away from any time.

What in the hell does that even mean? What does my mortgage have to do with any of this?

Not wanting a legally binding obligation to your wife = wanting to have the cow without having to pay for it. Its basically the same as free milk.

 

[P@triot]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

You know it. I know it. Seawytch knows it. You're desperation does not allow you to make up definitions as you go. The fact that people married among their own race in the 1700's is no reflection on the discussion we are having today and has no relevance.

 

[Unkotare]

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

There isn't much point in a marriage that is not recognized by the community.

By what community?

 

[Unkotare]

LOL! OMG marriage licenses aren't that expensive. You just didn't want to have a legally binding obligation to your wife! Come on man, who are you kidding? Instead of buying the cow with cash you wanted a mortgage you could walk away from any time.

What in the hell does that even mean? What does my mortgage have to do with any of this?

Not wanting a legally binding obligation to your wife = wanting to have the cow without having to pay for it. Its basically the same as free milk.

Man, there must be some ugly chicks in your neighborhood!

 

[Troubled_CA]

This isn't India and you know it. America has never arranged marriages - period.[/B]

In one tiny sentence we find out JUST how ignorant you are.

The Rise of Arranged Marriage in America | Alternet

The History of Arranged Marriages in America - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

it's probably happening somewhere in this country right NOW.

 

[Unkotare]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

Your stupid and pointless argument could be carried on (pointlessly) to the beginning of time. You lack the brain power to think of anything else, so you are desperately and futilely trying to keep your feeble shell of an 'argument' alive to no avail.

 

[RightThinking]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

You know it. I know it. Seawytch knows it. You're desperation does not allow you to make up definitions as you go. The fact that people married among their own race in the 1700's is no reflection on the discussion we are having today and has no relevance.

It is important not to let the radicals conflate racial discrimination with not approving of same-sex marriage. If the Court rules in ways that supports SSM, it is likely that they will become even more vociferous and shrill in their claims to "oppression." In other words, textbooks of history will be revised to make it appear that there has been a final "liberation" from centuries of oppression, and if the general public believes the deceitful balderdash that SSM can be equated to ending racial discrimination, it can transmogrify and distort the perceptions of the next generation to our detriment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Excellent article. I am a member of heritage.

The radical advocates of same-sex marriage keep insisting that they are being "denied" participation in a specific institution, and that is not true: They are demanding a change of the fundamental concept of an institution as we have known it in every culture of the world, and throughout human history.

The Supreme Court will make a ruling soon.

That's exactly what they said when young people decided to start courting and marrying on their own without approval from the parents and/or a religious authority.

 

[Unkotare]

America has never arranged marriages - period.[/B]

Yes we have had such arrangements, but that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

Uh, no - we haven't. There is an exception to every rule, but just because a few people here and there do something it does not reflect on an entire society. It had NEVER been a part of U.S. culture to arrange marriages. Never. And that is an indisputable fact.

Yes, it really has and yes, we really have. Stop digging on this one. Just stop. It's not going to end well for you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

You know it. I know it. Seawytch knows it. You're desperation does not allow you to make up definitions as you go. The fact that people married among their own race in the 1700's is no reflection on the discussion we are having today and has no relevance.

So the past is not relevant when it comes to a discussion of what is traditional?