Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[sparky]

The custom/discipline existed long before there were any Biblical sources though. The Bible simply outlined the traditions of tracing one's familial lineage through the generations. That existed in many cultures that never heard of Biblical characters and long before any Bible manuscripts were written down.

By the time there was a Roman Empire, all people in that Empire regardless of the areas they were born and grew up practiced marriage between men and women. It would be the Christian influence that mostly ended polygamy except in some outlier sects. Marriage itself has been around much longer than the 2100 years Christianity has existed.

Yes, perhaps it was my mistake to write 'biblical' , when i really meant religious sources FF......mea cuppa ~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm in agreement FF........my only inclusion being those laws, policies, and traditions that all XXXXXXX years old all hail from one source

religion

~S~

Maybe. You could be right since there are no ancient cultures that religion was not a factor. I have done extensive Bible research on some of this stuff, but have not done it re marriage on other cultures of Biblical times or prior to the invention of writing.

 

[Chuz Life]

The custom/discipline existed long before there were any Biblical sources though. The Bible simply outlined the traditions of tracing one's familial lineage through the generations. That existed in many cultures that never heard of Biblical characters and long before any Bible manuscripts were written down.

By the time there was a Roman Empire, all people in that Empire regardless of the areas they were born and grew up practiced marriage between men and women. It would be the Christian influence that mostly ended polygamy except in some outlier sects. Marriage itself has been around much longer than the 2100 years Christianity has existed.

I think several of us are trying to make the same point in different ways.

My basic premise is simple and minimalistic. The one man one woman model is the most simple and most basic way to establish the nucleus of a family with a male and female role model for any children created and that by extension becomes the best starting point for a society.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think several of us are trying to make the same point in different ways.

My basic premise is simple and minimalistic. The one man one woman model is the most simple and most basic way to establish the nucleus of a family with a male and female role model for any children created and that by extension becomes the best starting point for a society.

I certainly will not argue with that. I'm not sure that concept was fully developed in all of written human history.

Previously posted I defend recognition of the traditional nuclear family as a primary glue that enhances, improves, and sustains a healthy culture.

But my point re gay marriage is the unreasonableness of it and why a gay union, that I have no problem whatsoever with, should not be called marriage but should have its own unique designation.

 

[HeyNorm]

When and were in this country has being able to create "shared DNA children" been a requirement to enter into Civil Marriage?

WW

When was it never a requirement that the two had differing reproductive organs? Pre obergfell

We are about to enter the similarly situated argument.

 

[sparky]

My basic premise is simple and minimalistic. The one man one woman model is the most simple and most basic way to establish the nucleus of a family with a male and female role model for any children created and that by extension becomes the best starting point for a society.

that's the way nature works Chuz........~S~

 

[WorldWatcher]

When was it never a requirement that the two had differing reproductive organs?

We are about to enter the similarly situated argument.

It's never been a requirement that couple what differing reproductive organs.

Men with vasectomy and women with hysterectomies have always been able to marry.

WW

 

[DGS49]

(1) The Gay Mafia constantly tries to stoke fears among Sexual Irregulars that the Supreme Court will remove various of their current civil and legal rights. Without such fears, who needs these advocates for the Sexual Irregulars? It is all bullshit. Gay "marriage" is here to stay, and those who define marriage in traditional terms will never accept gay "marriage," but their disapproval is utterly pointless and irrelevant, and harms no one.

(2) The "hanging chads" from the Oberkfell decision are...wait for it...polygamy (polyandry) and incest. No State can prohibit either of them; any such prohibition would be "unconstitutional." When I say, "incest," I am referring to biologically-related adults wanting to live and exist as man and wife. (I'll not address bestiality, for obvious reasons).

(3) FWIW, the divorce rate for male homosexuals is less than for heterosexuals, which is less than for lesbians (over 60%). Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Chuz Life]

But my point re gay marriage is the unreasonableness of it and why a gay union should not be called marriage but should have its own unique designation.

In as much as I have a "constructionist's" mindset, I see and agree with that point. There is nothing in the "one man one woman" tried and true starting point does forbids any other couple from being committed to one another or even from getting the same kind of benefits another way.

 

[HeyNorm]

It's never been a requirement that couple what differing reproductive organs.

Men with vasectomy and women with hysterectomies have always been able to marry.

WW

Fair point, but:

Vasectomies can be reversed, and in a heterosexual relationship can result in a shared DNA child.

In a homosexual relationship, well……..

It really doesn’t accomplish a darn thing.

 

[HeyNorm]

In as much as I have a "constructionist's" mindset, I see and agree with that point. There is nothing in the "one man one woman" tried and true starting point does not forbid any other couple from being committed to one another or even from getting the same kind of benefits another way.

True, it was suggested that a separate “gay marriage” institution be created. Actually that solved the issue.

But making something called “same sex marriage” created an absurd institution that includes heterosexual same sex unions which, is insulting to the institution itself.

 

[Chuz Life]

True, it was suggested that a separate “gay marriage” institution be created. Actually that solved the issue.

But making something called “same sex marriage” created an absurd institution that includes heterosexual same sex unions which, is insulting to the institution itself.

Yep. I agree.

That's the part that feels "forced." The idea of having "civil unions" that are completely equal to "marriages" was just not acceptable to the proponents of "same sex marriage" and still is not acceptable today.

 

[sparky]

Gay "marriage" is here to stay, and those who define marriage in traditional terms will never accept gay "marriage," but their disapproval is utterly pointless and irrelevant, and harms no one.

when one is forced to serve that which one does not believe in, harm is done DG

~S~

 

[Chuz Life]

when one is forced to serve that which one does not believe in, harm is done DG

~S~

Exactly!

The way it was forced through the courts instead of sold as an idea in the court of popular opinion. . . was not helpful to their cause.

The point that I was trying to make in the OP is that it makes much more sense for something like the legal construct for what a "marriage" is to vary from one State to another than it is for the personhood and basic human rights of children to vary that way.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What was bigoted? It was equally opposing same sex marriage, regardless if the partners are homosexuals or heterosexuals.

How many heterosexuals are you aware of who want to enter into a same sex marriage?

The laws against sodomy applied equally to gays and straights but were exclusively used to target gays.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay people have every much right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anybody else.

And if the tables were turned and heterosexual marriage was prohibited , how would you feel . Would you be ok with marrying someone of the same sex? THINK!!

 

[Foxfyre]

And if the tables were turned and heterosexual marriage was prohibited , how would you feel . Would you be ok with marrying someone of the same sex? THINK!!

I do think. You obviously don't or you never would have made that post. The sad thing is that it is a pretty safe bet that you have no clue why it is as non sequitur and stupid as it is.

 

[HeyNorm]

And if the tables were turned and heterosexual marriage was prohibited , how would you feel . Would you be ok with marrying someone of the same sex? THINK!!

We wouldn’t feel anything. There wouldn’t be anyone to think.

Procreation and stuff

 

[HeyNorm]

How many heterosexuals are you aware of who want to enter into a same sex marriage?

The laws against sodomy applied equally to gays and straights but were exclusively used to target gays.

Got any municipalities that require sexuality on a marriage certificate? As far as you know, most might be same sex heterosexuals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I do think. You obviously don't or you never would have made that post. The sad thing is that it is a pretty safe bet that you have no clue why it is as non sequitur and stupid as it is.

You obviously do not understand what a non sequitur is but think that you can just toss that out there t avoid an honest answer to my question