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

Kentucky judge said it well


Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined....
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.

 

Exactly as I predicted. Since you do not want to recognize them as marriages, you will claim they aren't. A rose by any other name...

 

Good thing Dixon does not define what Marriage is, lol
He likely opposed interracial Marriage too.

 

We have contradicted every premise you have thrown out as to why same sexed couples should not receive the same legal benefits as opposite sexed couples. If we are not addressing the points you are trying to make, then you need to make your points clearer.

 

Translation:"I can't actually refute anything you've said, so I will claim all your arguments as strawmen." Consummation of marriage as a measure of whether or not a couple of any combination is married or not under the law is a red herring of your making. Countering it is not a strawman. But hey let's play the game. If my argument is a strawman then point out what your argument was and then show how mine claimed something else and then disproved that unrelated claim.

 

Not at all. Even after the 14th Amendment, laws were put into place that were in violation of it. But until someone is charged with that law and then challenges it in court, the courts cannot do anything about it. Don't confuse my arguments between the real and ideal. Reality is that there is still a lot of laws on the books that are in violation of other later laws. Witchcraft is still illegal by many laws still on the books. But no one bothers to enforce them. If someone were to try, they law would then be challenged as being in violation of the 1st Amendment, and all such laws would then be invalid officially. But a lack of legal challenge in the court system or lack of legislative effort to remove such laws does not change the fact that laws against witchcraft are in violation of the 1st Amendment. Just as, even before Oberfell, laws against SSM were in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

We already do. That is what IVF and other methods are.

In the limited way that you are using the word, this is true enough. Religious marriage is not required to engage in legal marriage, nor is legal marriage required to engage in legal marriage.

I have yet to see any rational need or reasoning to not call any legal partnership between two person or the same or opposite sex a marriage.

 

He specifically worded it such that it was not bestiality in any way, shape or form. No intercourse took place. It was all IVF. He was making a counter to my argument of the various methods that have been and are being developed. While I am sure it is from misunderstanding, you are engaging in a strawman here.

 

This is another example of the laws either continuing to exist after the 14th was passed or managed to be passed despite being in violation. Sex is not supposed to be a basis of law. Any marriage would not be limited on the basis of the sex of the one being married compared to one's own sex.

 

Good !!!!

I will Straw man and any other damn thing if you are going to in any way equate Gay Marriage with any union of any kind with animals, as far as breeding inter species, defacto calling Gay Marriage in the same category of procreation with animals.

 

Ndividual already tried the dictionary argument. Already blew him away.

 

It was a side debate where I was showing that today same sexed couples can have children and that soon they will be genetically of both women or both men. He unsuccessfully tried to show that such a procedure could also allow for the merging of human and animal DNA. Unless he says otherwise, I do not believe that he was trying to equate gay marriage itself with such procreation. I mean I can see where going through the vast number of posts, that it could have been easily missed as a side point, but I think you misinterpreted his one bad argument for a different bad argument.

 

I hope nobody puts that chestnut to Me in real life, because I might give up my normal pacifist attitude and pass a fist or two as Fred Sanford used to say.

And if it were possible, Animal Human Hybrids would indeed yeild horrible results that would need to be destroyed.

Giving new meaning to cruel and inhumane experimentation.
And I am in favor of stem cell research and all sorts of cutting-edge Scientific Research.

 

Sad how so many children are without their natural parents, huh? Not saying same sex couples are worse than anyone else, but what guidelines need to be met before adopting? So many children waiting to be in a home like pets in the humane society. Sorry for the ugly analogy. Imagine how they might feel if they have to figure out why they were abandoned.

Culture wars??? Nah.. I'll pass.
Religious wars??? What religion accepts this type of neglect??
Ethical and morality wars??? What are your thoughts?

What I don't understand is this... Why send monies and persons overseas to help those there instead of using those resources to help those here?


They are starving and need help. There are starving and needful ones here also.

Maybe the thought is; they over there, will be more willing to apply the help they receive to learn to not need help.


First food/nutrition, then clean water, then clean living areas/villages, then schools...then volunteer physicians... all with prayer hopes of helping a life or some be able to live out their entire lives better than without the food/nutrition, the clean water, the clean living spaces, the schools...


Another idea.... show them how to make clean water supplies, show them how to have clean living areas, show them how to make schools, show them how to teach in school settings, teach them how to check for vitals and show them how to use basic medicine...

They might begin writing and publishing their own material.

 

That's an extremely simplistic statement.
Go back and read my previous posts, perhaps even some to you, where I explained why the words defining a marriage do not permit clear and concise communication when applied to a legal union between two persons of the same sex.

 

It DOES affect my ability to communicate with others clearly and concisely.

Calm down, I'm not the one(s) trying to redefine marriage.

 

Not quite the same thing as creating a human from manufactured sperm.

Then in keeping with separation of Church and State, government should not be involved in marriage at all, simply recognizing a contractual agreement between two or perhaps even more persons to assume and accept all legal responsibilities for each other.

Then government should simply recognize the legal partnership. Problem solved.

 

Only one definition applies to the legal union and that is the legal definition, which now, due to Oberfell, cannot include the concept of opposite genders only. That aside, the word's definition has been applicable to multiple definitions since the concept arose. Just like the legal definition of incest on many law books differs greatly from just blood related individuals, so too does the legal definition differ from what other people accept as the social definition. This before we look at how words change in both use and definition over time.

 

This runs under the false premise that somehow the word "marriage" belongs to religion in general, or to any one specific religion. And if the claim is to religion in general, there are also many religions that define it as two individuals not one man one woman. Regardless, no one has a copyright or trademark to the word, and as such the legal system can use it for what the legal system defines it as.

I really wished that solved the problem. Thing is whenever it was tried to establish anything legally, either the same sex unions under a different name would not have all the same benefits and protections as opposite sexed couples, or the anti-SSM groups would fight against the removal of "marriage" from the law books, to be replaced with a word or phrase that applied to all, same and opposite sexed.So even when compromise was tried, it was fought against so that same sexed couples would not be legally equal to opposite sexed couples.

 

Those were quotes from YOUR source labeling them something other than marriage. Its not I making the claim, it is your source.

 

Here is the last point you labeled as false.

The point is perfectly clear. You haven't even contradicted the statement yet. Only chased after a strawman as usual. That's what you do here.

 

That was your strawman and you've kicked the **** out of it. You can let it go now.

 

Geez the word 'marriage' is not a problem. The word has two meanings that are roughly interrelated but not duplicative. Lots of words like that in our language. We solve this the same way as other languages do, with the production of adjectives and adjective phrases. So shove one of two adjectives in front of the noun, 'civil' or 'religious'. Its not hard stuff.

Voila!

 

14th Amendment enshrined discrimination on the basis of sex.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

Ok fine, you are incorrect there as well. The father, husband or not, is obligated by law to provide for the child he produces. Since we are talking matters of law here. The ability of those enforcing the law to determine and find the father so that he can fullfil his obligations in no way negates those obligations. A husband may be assumed the de facto husband by law, but he is not the only one obligated. Any father is. So in other words, just because the law cannot locate the father of the child, it does not mean he is not obligated to provide for that child. Regardless, this is still not an argument as to why a same sexed couple should not receive the same benefits and protections as a opposite sexed couple under the legal institution of marriage, especially since children are not a requirement of marriage.