|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/11/2008 12:18:30 AM |
That's what it's been like for them--the rule, not the exception that it was for you. So, how can you judge them as "uncooperative" when you yourself behave exactly the same way in similar circumstances?
I think you exagerrating to the point of blatant fabrication .
If a woman is not hired for a waitress job because she is not attractive , should society bring in legislation on behalf of unattractive people , or should we allow people their freedom and human right to choose who they hire in their private businesses?
Forced inclusion results in discrimination against a person's right to free choice.
But , most people , like myslelf , are very reasonable , so....
Cooperation means finding a middle ground , in what way is the undemocratically enforced laws redefining marriage as to include two people of the same sex finding a middle ground? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:20:45 AM | You cannot expect people whose rights are being denied to continue cooperating with a regime they see as unjust.
Equal treatment under law and custom is a precondition for cooperation. Deny that, and you are the one who is refusing to cooperate. If you demand that people submit to such a regime, and what you are advocating is extortion, not cooperation. If you were the one getting screwed, how would you respond to calls for "cooperation" from those who continue to receive benefits that are consistently denied you?
There is no middle ground where rights are concerned. If, as gay-marriage advocates contend, their right to equal treatment under law and custom is being systematically violated, they have a God-given right to continue petitioning the government for redress until that condition is corrected. And that is what they are doing.
Can you honestly fault them for that?
Since you are the one who is receiving those benefits, what are _you_ willing to do to reach out toward them to show them that _you_ are willing to cooperate?
Cooperation is not the same as putting up with bullshit, nor is it settling for less than equal treatment, nor is it going along with wind0w dressing or tokenism, nor is it settling for whatever bone is thrown by those who continue to see themselves as superior.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. If what you mean by "cooperation" doesn't fit into one of the above categories, please tell me exactly what it is you do mean.
Thanks! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/11/2008 1:03:37 PM | Montanan,
As far as I'm aware, you do not have to volunteer any of that information, especially sex, race, religion, disability, veteran status, age, and several other things.
Actually, all of those that I have listed are sexes or classifications of sexes as have been established by scholars. I think we need to be very clear about one thing. There is only ONE human species at this point. Granted, as I've posted earlier, scientist speculate in the future there may be two, but right now, there is only ONE species of human.
I think this entire argument is going around in circles, and that there is no resolution to come in the near future, so I will respectfully agree to disagree with you and wish you a good day.
*note; Agreeing to disagree does not mean anyone wins or loses. It just means that there are issues that can not be resolved and have chosen to stop the discussion with respect to each others opinions.* | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/11/2008 1:10:30 PM | Debating a topic such as this one should never be about winning or losing in the first place, but rather sharing opinions and learning different points of views creating evolution of thought.. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/11/2008 2:58:36 PM | Debating a topic such as this one should never be about winning or losing in the first place, but rather sharing opinions and learning different points of views creating evolution of thought.
I absolutely, totally, and completely agree with you on this AP.
Dialogue is all about breaking through the barriers that prevent people from understanding the positions of others. Of course I'd prefer it if everyone agreed with me, but if people see the logic of the position I advocate and it makes sense to them, that's all I care about.
The point is to get at what is right, true, fair, and just--not to "win" or "score," or one-up another person. If my position is faulty, I will be the first to admit it and stand corrected. (Of course, I might come at it from a different angle that avoids my previous error, but that's certainly fair. I'd expect the same from someone else whose position differed from my own!)
I argue as fervently as I do because I see this issue as a matter of justice. We either do what we can to abide by the social contract or we don't. If we find that we might not be holding up our end, there is nothing wrong with calling ourselves out on our shortcomings and working to correct them.
Still, these things take time. It must come as quite a shock to people when they are told that an institution that they hold dear is being unjustly administered. It must really hurt to hear that if they want to live up to their ideals of good citizenship they're going to have to think hard about what that institution signifies. My first reaction would be to resist it too. And though denial never resolves anything, directly confronting people who are wedded to an idea about the dark side of thier belief system and demanding that they make immediate corrections is a tough political strategy to win.
So, it might be politic for gay-marriage advocates to first get civil unions passed in every state and then move to dissolve the legal distinction between "marriage" and "civil union,"since it will then be all the more obvious that such a distinction signifies no real difference. By then, people who are having a hard time with the change will have lived with the compromise for a while, the world won't have come to an end over it, and it won't come as quite such a shock to them when they lose in court.
So, I'll go for the idea of civil unions as long as it doesn't rule out a future bid to make all legal "marriages" civil unions and reserve the word "marriage" for the religious ceremony.
It takes time to change a culture, but if that culture is going to fulfill its ideals, it will have to change over time! If you want freedom of religion, then you have to agree to equal protection under the law. Otherwise, you have no guarantee that your freedom to practice your religion will be protected equally. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 1:33:28 AM | And though denial never resolves anything, directly confronting people who are wedded to an idea about the dark side of thier belief system and demanding that they make immediate corrections is a tough political strategy to win.
...
So, I'll go for the idea of civil unions as long as it doesn't rule out a future bid to make all legal "marriages" civil unions and reserve the word "marriage" for the religious ceremony.
Of course, this is easy for me to say because I'm not someone who's currently being denied my right to marry whom I choose, even though freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution.
I forget who the Chief Justice was who said, "justice delayed is justice denied," but that certainly rings true. So, if the people who are pushing for gay marriage have already been delayed long enough, we in the majority owe it to them to stop abusing our government by forcing it to go on denying them their God-given rights.
Not only that, we owe it to ourselves. Because, if we condone such an abuse of government directed against them, who will stop a similar abuse of government power directed against us, and how can we even dare to ask them to? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 2:33:16 AM |
I am for what ever should be well and right.
Subjective. Everyone has a Different Opinion/Idea of what is 'Well,Right' (yes?)
But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority
Ok, had to read that a few times. ?
Um, 'as in' ? The small majority of the ... I.R.S. / Gov. ? How 'They' have pushed Income Tax , there is NO Law mandating such , the Majority would NOT pay those taxes ? (Given a 'choice') I Agree , I am also 'Completely Against' That.
whether the case be gay marriages or the extinction of animals.
Oh, ok - now I'm confused.
Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out. That is how it should be in issues that will affect the populace as a whole.
Yes, I Agree - VOTING. Too bad there are Many 'things' the people are not even Informed of , let alone afforded a Vote On/About (before being Forced to adhere)
As to the 'affect populace as a whole'?
I would feel NO personal impact of Anyone Else's marriage. Others might sight certain 'results' , Think/Say that I am effected.
Subjective. To Define 'True Effect' - 'Subject' must Agree. I do Not.
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 11:05:15 PM | Ezzee said...
"Montanan,
As far as I'm aware, you do not have to volunteer any of that information, especially sex, race, religion, disability, veteran status, age, and several other things."
If you get a moment Ezzee, find a source that has documents that are 60 to a 100 years of age that people had to fill out for things we still fill out in our day like realestate forms, medical, military, job applications, applications for renting, buying a car, etc. All of these present forms have set a standard as to what the goverment/private companies want to know about you. All of these established forms (though you disagree) set forth a pattern that a single form will never be had for all marriage unions that come to legally exist. It will just be easier to have a special form for each union. That is how it is done and that is how it will continue to be done.
Redhair said...
"Subjective. Everyone has a Different Opinion/Idea of what is 'Well,Right' (yes?)"
Agreed.
I said...
But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority
Redhair said...
"Ok, had to read that a few times. ?
Um, 'as in' ? The small majority of the ... I.R.S. / Gov. ? How 'They' have pushed Income Tax , there is NO Law mandating such , the Majority would NOT pay those taxes ? (Given a 'choice') I Agree , I am also 'Completely Against' That."
I said...
whether the case be gay marriages or the extinction of animals.
Redhair said...
"Oh, ok - now I'm confused."
What I was speaking of in those to sentences was how when a majority likes something the way it is and or sees no danger to mind or body of some topic and a minority comes along and says (people for helmets/seatbelts) "We have to protect your head/body because your to stupid not to wear a helmet/seatbelt to protect yourself so we petitioned our state and now it is a law you have to protect yourself from something that may never happen to you."
For the extinction of animals EXAMPLE (please create another thread if you wish to talk of this one), see the Alaska Polar bear debate. The ice has been shrinking for decades but in the last 30 years the Polar bear population has grown but they, a small minority of enviormentalists claim they will become extinct in a few decades.
Compared to the large majority not wanting to share a marriage certificate with homosexuals, a small minority want their piece of it and since they can't get the present populations of many states to agree to what they want through votes on the issue, they found they don't have to push certain LIBERAL/DICTATOR type governors very hard at all to FORCE the majority to accept what they wish not to have happen in this issue. So the governors have TOLD the legislature they will MAKE a law for the acceptance of homosexual marriages and screw what the public at large does not want.
This forcing thing these governors have done.......very very bad thing for ALL citizens when a governor actually has the experience of when HE wants what the majority of the general public does not want and HE gets what he wants. How much farther will he go with this new experience? What else shall he FORCE on the general populace whether they want it or not??? He is now a DICTATOR and any pro-homosexual marriage supporter who supports the FORCED laws of these governors is now FACTUALLY supporting a DICTATORSHIP to it's full definition and that is what the USA is not suppose to be about.
Fighting in the legal system, getting more and more of the populace to agree for homosexual marriage rights is one thing. But to actually support the actions of a DICTATOR concerning this matter???? Stupid is, stupid does. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 11:14:32 PM |
This forcing thing these governors have done.......very very bad thing for ALL citizens when a governor actually has the experience of when HE wants what the majority of the general public does not want and HE gets what he wants. How much farther will he go with this new experience? What else shall he FORCE on the general populace whether they want it or not??? He is now a DICTATOR and any pro-homosexual marriage supporter who supports the FORCED laws of these governors is now FACTUALLY supporting a DICTATORSHIP to it's full definition and that is what the USA is not suppose to be about.
Fighting in the legal system, getting more and more of the populace to agree for homosexual marriage rights is one thing. But to actually support the actions of a DICTATOR concerning this matter???? Stupid is, stupid does.
That is the stupidest thing I have had read all day. So you are telling me that I am now forced rto accept gay marraige Actually I have always been for it and it is not an afrtont to me or any thinking person.)
it is offensive to me that you think that the rights of gays to marry is something forced down your thraot and that it will lead to other things. No it wont.
First off, there is no sanctity of marriage since the divorce rate is now closing in on 65%
Most gay and Lasbian couples have been to gether at least as long as the average straight couple and even longer.
Civil unions are not and will never be the same as marraige. Marraige has nothing to do with the church despite marriage ceramonies. Marriage was not about romance either, it was about ataining property and wealth.
if two people are in love and choose to marry, that is there business, regardles of sexual orientation. It is not a special right forced on you...I do not see anyone asking you to marry a man? It is about equal rights. It is in your constitution and the bill of rights ,buddy. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 11:26:20 PM | Norse said...
"That is the stupidest thing I have had read all day....... it is offensive to me that you think that the rights of gays to marry is something forced down your thraot and that it will lead to other things. No it wont."
Norse, you are one of the people who apparently applaud a governor that forces a law into being upon unconstitutional mandates in the way they have did it. EVERY single state in the USA has a specific way and manner that laws are brought to be. Some of these issues in prelude to being a law are put to the public for a final approval or disaproval. FORGET about the specific issue. Look OUTSIDE the box. Show me any past governor in the last 60 years that has done what these liberal governors have done and FORCED their legislators to pass a law. Show me one conservative/liberal governor who in the last 60 years, all by himself, that has delt with something that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the safety and well being of your mind and body and TOLD his legislators...."Make this a law" and then passed it into action. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 11:39:18 PM | ^^^No. I do not blindly aplaude being forced to live by rules I did not vote for. However, this is not an issue of something being forced down your throat. it is about civil liberties only. Since you and I for that matter are not GAY, then how does it effect us in any way shape or form. it doesnt. All this is is that gays get the same financial rights as stright couples. The governor and the Judges had to overturn the ban. The ban in and of itself was unconstitutional. The fact that they had to have a vote on it and would allow straights and bigoted ones at that to be involved 2 years ago was sickining to say the least. It should have never had to vcome to a vote. I do not carre if you are a christian and against people being gay..or at least having their rights being truncated, but that is your opinion. The constitution and the bill of rights says it quite clear. "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"".
\
You are not being told to accept gay marriage, all that is being done is that gays can marry. Simple as that. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/12/2008 11:39:22 PM |
What I was speaking of in those to sentences was how when a majority likes something the way it is and or sees no danger to mind or body of some topic and a minority comes along and says (people for helmets/seatbelts) "We have to protect your head/body because your to stupid not to wear a helmet/seatbelt to protect yourself so we petitioned our state and now it is a law you have to protect yourself from something that may never happen to you."
Well, in the case of seatbelts and helmets, it turned out that those who weren't wearing them put a huge strain on the medical care system and drove insurance rates up for everyone else--in addition to the damage it did to the drivers/riders themselves who crashed without proper protection.
The gay marriage thing actually works in the opposite direction. It won't hurt anyone, and yet people still want to deny it.
The ice has been shrinking for decades but in the last 30 years the Polar bear population has grown but they, a small minority of enviormentalists claim they will become extinct in a few decades.
When it comes to habitat, there is a phenomon called carrying capacity. If the habitat shrinks beyond the point where the minimum population required to maintain genetic diversity can survive, they'll go extinct. It doesn't matter what the population trend has been.
Compared to the large majority not wanting to share a marriage certificate with homosexuals, a small minority want their piece of it and since they can't get the present populations of many states to agree to what they want through votes on the issue, they found they don't have to push certain LIBERAL/DICTATOR type governors very hard at all to FORCE the majority to accept what they wish not to have happen in this issue. So the governors have TOLD the legislature they will MAKE a law for the acceptance of homosexual marriages and screw what the public at large does not want.
A governor can certainly try to use whatever influence he/she has. That's what leadership is about. The legislature doesn't _have_ to go along. If they cave, they aren't doing their job. But if the courts are going to strike down the prohibition against gay marriage anyway because the prohibition is unconstitutional, the governor might just be circumventing a long, nasty, and divisive court battle that would be a losing proposition anyway.
If the governor you cite is thwarting the will of the people, well, that's what elections are for, and I agree that the citizens should vote him out for that. But they shouldn't vote him out for backing those who call for simple justice. And, if he feels that justice is not being served by the majority's view, he has a duty to both educate and lead. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/13/2008 12:12:25 AM | Marriage is about more than to obtain property and wealth. It was about reproduction to perpetuate human existance as well. With the term marriage being biblicial in the sense of reproduction I would think that excludes same sex marriage as they can not possibly impregnate one another.
I am not saying two people that love one another should be denied a union if they choose, but if you can't reproduce what is the point to marriage?
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.
another view
Why did God create sex and marriage? Let's consider the reasons.
The first purpose
Perhaps the most obvious of God's purposes for sex and marriage is for the reproduction of the human species. Notice the first statement in the Bible about God's creation of man: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27, emphasis added throughout).
The statement that God created them male and female is the first reference to human sexuality. God created the sexes; it wasn't an evolutionary accident. (If you'd like to read proof that God exists and Darwinian evolution is but a modern-day myth, be sure to request the free booklets Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? and Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?)
Next we read: "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it ...'" (verse 28). The statement that men and women are to reproduce is part of the blessing that God pronounces in this verse.
and this,
History of Marriage
The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union. | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/13/2008 2:19:10 AM |
So the governors have TOLD the legislature they will MAKE a law for the acceptance of homosexual marriages and screw what the public at large does not want.
The rest of the post is SO 'all over the place' - would probably make it quite challenging for most to focus on what the original topic even was.
The quote does speak to the topic , so ...
Laws are not a determination, or even an indication of Acceptance. If there is an Absence of a Law (regarding This Specific Topic) , then one may have to accept ...
"I am wishing to Marry , can't / the Marriage will Not be Legal , recognized by State, will Not be Afforded the Rights of Marriage."
If one is Not seeking a Marriage , Not recognized by Law / State ? I do not see that there is Anything to Accept / Not Accept.
Very Basically : There is an 'Olden day' saying that parents used to teach their children ,as a 'little wisdom' . It used to be customary for most parents to tell, teach theirs to "Mind your OWN business."
Although the mention of 'Helmet Laws' could be a distraction for some , it does bring to mind a Specific scenario. (that illustrates the Technical distinction between Law , and Acceptance.)
An 8 yr old child was in a very Serious bicycle accident. The child did suffer Non life threatening , yet Serious injury. In studying all the FACTS of the accident the Conclusion of the Doctors : "Had ONE detail been Different - the Child would be Dead."
See, if that child HAD been wearing a Helmet ? Would have broken their neck = Dead.
Whether or Not there Was a Law - "Wear Helmet" ...
Did Not Accept , was Not wearing , That child did not Die.
Law does NOT = Acceptance. And? ^ That is a situation where the Law Personally pertained to the Individual , Their Choices.
There is No LOGIC in one being so concerned about a 'Helmet Law' , if They aren't even going to 'Ride a bike' . | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/13/2008 9:04:40 AM |
I am not saying two people that love one another should be denied a union if they choose, but if you can't reproduce what is the point to marriage?
The primary benefit to the partners in a marriage is the security of knowing that the person they love and trust the most will be able to care for them when they can no longer care for themselves. The consideration they give in exchange for that assurance is joint title to their property.
People who don't intend to have children marry so that they can take care of their partners. That aspect of marriage is true for all marriages, with or without children, and it is the primary benefit that most gay couples seek.
Unmarried people whose partners have died have witnessed the relatives of those partners swoop in and use the inheritance laws to challenge the deceased partner's wills and take all the deceased partner's property--in spite of that deceased partners expressed wish for that property to go to the living partner. Had the partners been married, there would have been no question about to whom the property belonged and no opportunity for venal relatives to strip the living partner of her or his inheritance.
Unmarried people have also been deprived of the opportunity to manage the care of their life partners who became incompetent, even when they have left specific instructions. If there is any fault in a medical power of attorney, relatives have stepped in to thwart the wishes of the incapacitated or dying partner and deny the healthy partner visitation.
Is marriage more about kids or more about mutual commitment to see each other through times of adversity?
Where in any marriage vows do they say _anything_ about children? I should think that if that was the primary purpose of the institution, people would say so.
No. The primary purpose of marriage is to publicly acknowledge the commitments of the partners to care for each other no matter what may come. That's the cake. Children are the icing for those who want them. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:30:01 PM | MrMan said...
"Unmarried people whose partners have died have witnessed the relatives of those partners swoop in and use the inheritance laws to challenge the deceased partner's wills and take all the deceased partner's property--in spite of that deceased partners expressed wish for that property to go to the living partner. Had the partners been married, there would have been no question about to whom the property belonged and no opportunity for venal relatives to strip the living partner of her or his inheritance."
^^Unfortunately, the above has been true for much longer then remembered. It was done long before homosexuals came out of the closet. Most familys in the past and now still don't give a lot of value to "shacking up" situations of other family members no matter how long they were together. When a family member dies, the rest usually do swoop in and fight over the physical property as has always been done by family members with greed in their veins. The non-greedy family members usually don't care what happens to the dead family member's property.
Unmarried people have also been deprived of the opportunity to manage the care of their life partners who became incompetent, even when they have left specific instructions. If there is any fault in a medical power of attorney, relatives have stepped in to thwart the wishes of the incapacitated or dying partner and deny the healthy partner visitation.
^^The above is being changed slowly from state to state. Maybe to slowly eh?
MrMan said....
"Is marriage more about kids or more about mutual commitment to see each other through times of adversity? Where in any marriage vows do they say _anything_ about children? I should think that if that was the primary purpose of the institution, people would say so. "
I am surprised you even asked that question. That is why people 'use' to get married at one time, to have and raise a family. If one of the married partners turned up 'un-fruitful' family and friends felt sorry for them because that is what marriage was about for the longest time.....meeting your soul mate and having kids. I know that train of thinking has changed in the last few decades to meeting a person who you might get along well enough to maybe marry and MAYBE then, somewhere down the road a kid or two might be entertained into the equation after educations and careers have been well established. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:25:39 PM |
Marriage is about more than to obtain property and wealth. It was about reproduction to perpetuate human existance as well. With the term marriage being biblicial in the sense of reproduction I would think that excludes same sex marriage as they can not possibly impregnate one another.
Sorry you lost the argument there. I am an Athiesist and do not beleive in god. Inorder for you to prove he exists would be off topic. Furthermore, god has no place in thuis discussion. This is an issue of law's of the state, and From what I remeber in civics and government classes was that there was seperation between church and state.
Also unmaried people reproduce.... and what about artificial insemination? marriae or being straight does not stop reproduction.
I am not saying two people that love one another should be denied a union if they choose, but if you can't reproduce what is the point to marriage?
^^^Welll read above. people who are gay can reproduce thru artificial insemination. Furthermore what about people who mary who are infertile. Are you saying that a woman with no ovum should not be able to marry the man of her dreams. I'm sorry but if you romantically love someone enough that marrie is a nessity, it don't matter if you reproduce or not. Also tell all the single straight and lesbian moms to stop bringing kids into the world while your at it..
Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.
As I said before the only need for tracing a blood line is to establish who owns what after two marry and aFTER ONE DIES.
another view
Why did God create sex and marriage? Let's consider the reasons.
\
Nope let's not talk about your imaginary friend and how he created everything. There are atheists, budhists, hindus, muslims, wicca, etc, none believe in the same god and it is offf topic. Unless you can come up with proof he exists (or that other gods exist) and not with the bible, then maybe your answers will have merrit.
The first purpose
Perhaps the most obvious of God's purposes for sex and marriage is for the reproduction of the human species. Notice the first statement in the Bible about God's creation of man: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27, emphasis added throughout).
The statement that God created them male and female is the first reference to human sexuality. God created the sexes; it wasn't an evolutionary accident. (If you'd like to read proof that God exists and Darwinian evolution is but a modern-day myth, be sure to request the free booklets Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? and Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?)
Next we read: "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it ...'" (verse 28). The statement that men and women are to reproduce is part of the blessing that God pronounces in this verse.
and this,
History of Marriage
The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union.
Marriage in all it's splender was started as a way for two families to combine wealth and double their property. In the dark ages only those who had titles were alowed to wed. Serfs and slaves and common folk could not.
it wasnt until elizabethan times annd the advent of privacy that romance was a reason to wed, and it was fround upon. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:17:14 AM | Ok norseviking869, I see your points but I am not sure what we would have done to get this far without { artificial insemination } so the only way for reproduction to perpetuate human existance would have been?
Again,
As I said before the only need for tracing a blood line is to establish who owns what after two marry and aFTER ONE DIES.
How would that have come to pass if two people could not have the kind of sex required to impregnate one another to find that blood required? , and if tracing bloodlines decides who owns what after one dies that isn't going to establish anything because if you can't have sex together and reproduce then both bloodlines are not involved.
Barring modern technology how would one accomplish bloodlines and perpetuating human existance? Would we not have become extinct long before science caught up?
As far as the "invisible" man theroy, I won't even include something of faith on the subject.
ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs.
Same sex can not and will not ever be able to perpetuate human existance.
Would not a civil union and all other legal recourse not suffice? If in doubt why not have everything held jointly in name? You can't take away something from someone if it is jointly owned. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/14/2008 3:55:31 PM |
Would not a civil union and all other legal recourse not suffice? If in doubt why not have everything held jointly in name? You can't take away something from someone if it is jointly owned.
Firstly I would like to say thank you for the points that you made on this and that your response was well versed and was not an attack.
Secondly The reason that civil union does not work is ther are no laws in existance to make the IRS or most lawyers accept them in divorce or probate situations. Families can still swoop down and take the inheritance, the partner is devoid of the same rights durring a divorce if they make signifigantly less than the ex, they could be finacially ruined by the divorce. Untill there are laws on the books that will make lawyers and the IRS respect the civil union as they respecct a marige then the only recorce is to legalize gay marriage.
I realize that on a fundamental level, you think that it is wrong for tow peopkl of the same sex to even date, and that is your right to have that opinion. However, despite your opinion that homosexualty is wrong, that infringing on someones right , " to be sinful" isnt that wrong.
Doesnt it go against free will. Something that the bible teaches that we must respect, the free will of others? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:42:50 PM | Some good points Norse. You represent the population making judgement calls based on atheism. Many do that. But people like D Lily represent those who judgements come from theism. The funny thing in this issue is that you have many same sex couples that believe in theism who believe in same sex marriage and that the God they worship is all fine with it. But the God of the OT and NT demonstrates he is against any sexual relations outside that which takes place between a man and woman in a union. So those same sex couples that are Christians have to give exceptions to the older teachings to do what they do just like adulters, drunkerds, etc. The only same sex couples (in my opinion) that don't have to deal with all the religious over tones of right and well and what they will or won't make exceptions to are atheistic same sex couples. They are fighting for a right of equality as hetro unions without dealing with the religious issues.
Theism types (especially Christians) that don't support same sex marriages don't support them because God in the Bible does not support them. I agree that religious bigots are out there. But for the most part, the good religious folk out there, they no more would support same sex marriages any more then they would support shacking up, drunkedness, adultry, etc. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/14/2008 11:21:44 PM | Most familys in the past and now still don't give a lot of value to "shacking up" situations of other family members no matter how long they were together.
When marriage is available, partners don't avail themselves of the protection it provides, and then get screwed, it is tragic. But it is blatantly unjust when partners are denied those protections on the basis of nothing more than religious intolerance.
Is marriage more about kids or more about mutual commitment to see each other through times of adversity? Where in any marriage vows do they say _anything_ about children? I should think that if that was the primary purpose of the institution, people would say so. "
I am surprised you even asked that question. That is why people 'use' to get married at one time, to have and raise a family. If one of the married partners turned up 'un-fruitful' family and friends felt sorry for them because that is what marriage was about for the longest time.....meeting your soul mate and having kids.
In the traditional view, a stable family was always a prerequisite for having children. People understood that the marriage partnership was what allowed them to support children. So, if it was their dream to have children, they needed to establish the marriage first--a partnership in which they could support one another in their life goals, which for many included children.
At least, that was the ideal. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/14/2008 11:34:47 PM |
That's what it's been like for them--the rule, not the exception that it was for you. So, how can you judge them as "uncooperative" when you yourself behave exactly the same way in similar circumstances?
I think you exagerrating to the point of blatant fabrication .
Have you ever asked the gay and lesbian people you know what their experience has been? You might find it both disturbing and enlightening. Please don't take my word for it. But please also don't take the word of those who would prefer you to remain ignorant. Please do check up on me, and if I'm wrong after you've done your own checking, I'll stand corrected. Will you do the same?
Should we allow people their freedom and human right to choose who they hire in their private businesses?
So long as those business don't perform services for any government agency or provide any sort of public accommodation, it's not the government's business. But as soon as a private business takes on a public face, society has a legitimate interest in ensuring that it is being conducted fairly.
Forced inclusion results in discrimination against a person's right to free choice.
No right is absolute. Freedom of choice is limited by the requirement that we all be treated equally under law and custom.
But the only people who would be included in a gay marriage would be the gay people who chose to marry each other. If you don't want to be included in such a marriage, no one will be forcing you to do so any time soon!  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/15/2008 1:25:07 AM | Norseviking I don't want to attack any one and personally because you are athiest does not mean I discount you or your opinions. I know a few athiest and hold no discord or disfavor. I will say the same about lesbian and gay.
I just think if you can not concieve children because of same sex { as in a natural } union then it is a unatural. I mean soley science or has to take the place of nature.
I do agree laws should protect those unions that may be held different from our own with regard to property or medical decisions as well as final death. Even some that have been married have lost out of request of the spouse from family or other statues, so marriage does not solve the problems.
Doesnt it go against free will. Something that the bible teaches that we must respect, the free will of others? Yes, and I do. I think love is hard enough to find in this world and if you can find it, keep it, and live long with it is the greatest reward of all.
I have to say though I just believe those that perpetuate the existance of humans in the natural way should be allowed a distinction through the sanctity of marriage, that determines ones natural bloodline and protects their lineage.
If you can not create that event, the experiance of two bodies joined to produce new life and bring forth that new life from only two bodies it is hard for you to understand. Going through medical operations in which only one is a natural parent is different.
Just like you throw God and the bible in my face, that is fine, I can understand you, but you have no understanding or tolerance for me and what I believe or think.
Anyway, I do like you on the post because I do like what you have to contribute even if we sometime disagree.
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:55:21 PM | | Yesterday was he first official day of legal same sex marriages. I have to say that It is about time . It is upsetting to say the least that the religeous right would still like to ban what ever they can to put the kaibosh on gay marraie 9 i.e. outlawing the new unisex party a, party b, marriage licences and the nov. elections). It should not even go up for a vote. All I can say is al I saw was happiness save for the 3 people who protested in contra costa co. when the man who has married straight couples for 15 years can finally say I do to his lover of 25 years. | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
