A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

CHAPTER 2. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP


SUBCHAPTER A. APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE


Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE. (a) A man and a woman desiring

to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license

from the county clerk of any county of this state.

(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of

the same sex.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/SDocs/FAMILYCODE.pdf

What "legal definition" are you referring to?

 

Shame we are not talking about Roman law or you might have a point with this... It’s irrelevant to the larger discussion but you do realize that the Roman emperor Nero married a man - not once but twice with public ceremonies held throughout Rome and Greece...

So you point is not only irrelevant, it is wrong.

 

1997 Texas is calling, and there goes your BS that same sex marriage was never banned by statute. Love when you refute your own postings. Your arguments are so poorly strung together that you cannot even keep up with them any longer.
I’m sure rahl was referring to modern day law. You know 2018, the year we live in...

 

So you're saying this is a movement against religion?

 

No, marriage equality has nothing to do with religion.
How y’all can twist this as being anti-religion is beyond my comprehension; Christian extremist groups were the ones petitioning for homosexuality to become and then remain illegal, for denial of basic freedoms, then for refusal of unions and adoption rights. Only one side is “against” the other.

 

You were the one who introduced religion into the discussion. I'm not a believer in any form of supernatural beings nor do I genuflect to politicians, even those I may have voted for.
Equality of rights has nothing to do with religion or marriage. IF, as some claim, homosexuality is a natural occurring propensity then it should be obvious that like being born blind, deaf, mute, or with some form of disabling/enabling abnormality, laws cannot prevent their occurrence.
I have no problems at all recognizing a partnership between two men, two women, or a man and a woman having equal rights and responsibilities under our laws, while I feel adoption rights may tend to be somewhat presumptive and ignore the rights of a child.

 

Marriage became irrelevant when it could be dissolved at either Partners whim.

 

There are no adoption rights and there shouldn't be. Because precisely what you said the child has rights and those Trump anyone else's rights to adopt.

 

Actually my point was in what you deleted from my post quoting CURRENT law. Here it is again.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;....

BIOLOGY, not religion.

Under the law of the time-

"It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).
Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

AGAIN, because of biology, not religion.

 

Actually, that's current statutes on the books.

Says no license is issued. No law prohibits marriage without a license. I saw two guys get married in a wedding ceremony in Central Texas back about 2008

Again, that's current Texas statutes.

 

consummation of marriage

Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.
Related to consummation of marriage: consummate
consummation of marriage
full sexual intercourse between married persons after their marriage by the insertion of the penis into the vagina. Inability to consummate because of impotence or refusal to consummate is a ground for nullity of the marriage.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consummation+of+marriage

 

both of those are irrelevant to marraige

 

The legal definition in all 50 states, obviously.

 

No it isn't, as they were made null and void after obergefell.

no you didn't. without the license, there is no marriage.

No it isn't. Same sex couples are issued marriage licenses in texas.

 

Which has no bearing on the legality of the marriage unless the parties involved request it. The State and church do not arbitrarily end it. The marriage is still legal in their eyes.

 

Again, presumption of paternity is now testable, it no longer has to be presumed. This still isn’t an argument against same sex marriage.

There were numerious other same sex marriages in Rome, Greece, China, and so on - marriage as a non-religious legally protective institution with tax benifits is a modern concept which is why your argument falls apart.

 

Relevant to CD8s assertion

Wasn't religion that limited marriage to men and women, it was biology.

 

no it isn't.

Nope. Biology has nothing to do with it.

 

From the US Supreme Court case cited in the Obergefell decision-

"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, childrearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.....Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Religion didnt limit marriage to men and women, biology limited marriage to men and women. Appellee had a right to procreate with a woman of his choice. He didn't have any such right with a gay lover. Religion had nothing to do with it. Religion came up with the limitation to just one wife here in the US. The old laws against adultery, sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, homosexual sex came from religion, among others but it had nothing to do with marriages limitation to men and women.

 

Rofl, I have been saying the Roman phrase is irrelevant for years now, modern law supersedes Roman law.

I have already proven that there was no such limitation, even in ancient law. Marriage originally was for ownership purposes, now it’s for family, legal and tax protections. You’re really struggling with this it seems.

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. Religion is why same sex couples were banned from marriage. Specifically, religious bigotry toward homosexuals.

 

This has nothing to do with same sex marriage besides identifying that marriage is a right. Procreation is not relevant to marriage.

 

Irrelevant to your assertion and my response to it

 

My statement that Christian organizations largely blocked same sex civil unions is fact
Your irrelevant assertion in response was that marriage was based off biology using Roman terms as ancient evidence, which I showed you Roman emperors married men - which you attempted to disregard.

So, as usual, your entire point is not only irrelevant and off topic, it is incorrect.

 

Correct. It instead has to do with marriage from the dawn of civilization and up until the 1990s.