Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
They certainly dismiss the impossibility of procreation as a factor.

That's now a differnet point to what you started to argue. Do you now drop your original claim?

That "original claim" being..................?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Residing in the UK makes me wonder about your understanding of the English language.

Was it my "accent"?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you; I thought you had accepted the facts since you are now saying " primarily the means of procreating responsibly" when previously you had said (in response to a statement of "..are "marriage" and "having children" one and the same? I never realised....") that "Apparently you didn't realize." which was saying that you believed that marriage and having children are synonymous.

Marriage and having children are synonymous, but not guaranteed.

Let's see if I can illustrate this more simply:

If a couple (hetero or homo) are interested in a "union" without children, what is the use of a binding "marriage" when there is no progeny? Aren't economic contracts valid enough? The state has screwed up marriage enough to provide for that. We have prenuptual agreements galore. Why redefine marriage?

If you are saying that you haven't changed your mind and you still believe that marriage is one and the same as having children how do you account for several states in the USA having laws that specifically only allow marriage if the marriage cannot "have children"?

I don't. I think it's the same as what's going on now with the homosexual marriage fiasco.

I've got pretty neat 1st cousins, but marrying them isn't in the cards.

 

[Darat]

That "original claim" being..................?

Your claim: Those advocating homosexual marriage are expected to use this fact to bolster their demand for marriage rights, .....

Marriage and having children are synonymous, but not guaranteed.

You have actual quotes of legislation from certain states that states quite clearly that if procreation can happen marriage cannot happen therefore it is proved by the facts that marriage and having children are not synonymous.

I am really struggling to understand why you cannot understand this given we have the facts in front of us.

Let's see if I can illustrate this more simply:

If a couple (hetero or homo) are interested in a "union" without children, what is the use of a binding "marriage" when there is no progeny? Aren't economic contracts valid enough? The state has screwed up marriage enough to provide for that. We have prenuptual agreements galore. Why redefine marriage?

Marriage is not offered (by the state) on the basis that a couple will procreate indeed the only mention of procreation in regards to being allowed to marry are to do with not allowing people to marry if they can procreate!

I'll say it bluntly - you do seem to understand what marriage currently is in the USA.

I don't. I think it's the same as what's going on now with the homosexual marriage fiasco.

I've got pretty neat 1st cousins, but marrying them isn't in the cards.

I have no idea what part of my post you quoted this answers.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster - are you under the mistaken impression that what is being discussed in this thread i.e. "marriage" has anything to do with the ceremonies religions like Islam, Hinduism and Christianity call "marriage"?

Not at all. I'm under the impression that what is being discussed in this thread is the commitment of marriage under the laws of God.

I understand that some have a different understanding of the word "marriage", and that is likely the basis of the confusion and discrepancy.

Perhaps a definition is in order:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

If so then you are mistaken, what is being dicsussed is what the state calls "marriage".

"The state"? Or the English language?

At any rate, today, both the state (here in Alaska, and in the U.S.) as well as the English language define marriage as legally not including homosexual unions.

Agree? Disagree?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That "original claim" being..................?

Your claim: Those advocating homosexual marriage are expected to use this fact to bolster their demand for marriage rights, .....

I stand by that claim.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Marriage and having children are synonymous, but not guaranteed.

You have actual quotes of legislation from certain states that states quite clearly that if procreation can happen marriage cannot happen therefore it is proved by the facts that marriage and having children are not synonymous.

Yup.

And I have professed my opinion that marriage of 1st cousins isn't wise, isn't good, and I hereby state that it was a concession that the state shouldn't have allowed.

I am really struggling to understand why you cannot understand this given we have the facts in front of us.

Struggle on. I don't expect you to understand.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Let's see if I can illustrate this more simply:

If a couple (hetero or homo) are interested in a "union" without children, what is the use of a binding "marriage" when there is no progeny? Aren't economic contracts valid enough? The state has screwed up marriage enough to provide for that. We have prenuptual agreements galore. Why redefine marriage?

Marriage is not offered (by the state) on the basis that a couple will procreate indeed the only mention of procreation in regards to being allowed to marry are to do with not allowing people to marry if they can procreate!

The state doesn't "offer" marriage. It regulates it.

Poorly, too, in my opinion.

I'll say it bluntly - you do seem to understand what marriage currently is in the USA.

I like blunt statements. I do it all the time.

Originally Posted by Huntster :

I don't. I think it's the same as what's going on now with the homosexual marriage fiasco.

I've got pretty neat 1st cousins, but marrying them isn't in the cards.

I have no idea what part of my post you quoted this answers.

See above.

 

[Darat]

Not at all. I'm under the impression that what is being discussed in this thread is the commitment of marriage under the laws of God.

...snip...

I thought you were making that mistake.

What is being discussed in this thread is the legislation that a country's government defines as a "marriage".

In the case of the USA is a legal "contract" and although often closely linked to what various religions call "a marriage" the two are very distinct and separate concepts. The state (in the USA especially) is not involved with this "god" business whatever that word means.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

"The state"? Or the English language?

At any rate, today, both the state (here in Alaska, and in the U.S.) as well as the English language define marriage as legally not including homosexual unions.

Agree? Disagree?

Yes and no.

I agree that in the USA and in Alaska the law currently only allows marriage between people of different sexes. That is why there is a dicussion about changing it....

As for what the word means. Well definitions in English dictionaries only reflect current usage so be prepared for a shock:

I. Simple uses.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

That is from the latest revision of the acknowledged greatest and most authoritative English language dictionary - the OED. (I can provide a temporary link if you doubt my quote.)

Like societies that speak English the language is for ever changing.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not at all. I'm under the impression that what is being discussed in this thread is the commitment of marriage under the laws of God.

...snip...

I thought you were making that mistake.

What is being discussed in this thread is the legislation that a country's government defines as a "marriage".

In the case of the USA is a legal "contract" and although often closely linked to what various religions call "a marriage" the two are very distinct and separate concepts.....

Yes, indeed.

There's lots more:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the individual states, as can be witnessed with the various state lawsuits.

Like Roe V. Wade, eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to intervene. Like Roe (and Dred Scott), it will lead to disaster.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes, indeed.
Like Roe V. Wade, eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to intervene. Like Roe (and Dred Scott), it will lead to disaster.

Yeah like abolition and sufferage too.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
...snip...

"The state"? Or the English language?

At any rate, today, both the state (here in Alaska, and in the U.S.) as well as the English language define marriage as legally not including homosexual unions.

Agree? Disagree?

Yes and no.

I agree that in the USA and in Alaska the law currently only allows marriage between people of different sexes. That is why there is a dicussion about changing it....

The reason why there is discussion on changing it is because the homosexual community has gained great power among those in the media, and that has generated talk on changing law.

The same is true about a whole spectrum of issues.

So what? Do you think that the media, and the issues they like to publish, are the issues that most Americans consider important?

As for what the word means. Well definitions in English dictionaries only reflect current usage so be prepared for a shock:

I. Simple uses.

1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.

That is from the latest revision of the acknowledged greatest and most authoritative English language dictionary - the OED. (I can provide a temporary link if you doubt my quote.)

Yeah. The old "my dictionary is more valid than yours" argument.

You think I consider that "shocking"?

I suggest that you don't want to see the kind of shock I'm used to.

Like societies that speak English the language is for ever changing.

As long as folks like yourself exist, that is true.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, indeed.
Like Roe V. Wade, eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will have to intervene. Like Roe (and Dred Scott), it will lead to disaster.

Yeah like abolition and sufferage too.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

(I'm being careful, here, rocket....)

Are you indicating that blacks and women should have been kept "under"?

To a certain extent, I understand the sentiment.

To the macro, I think it's for the best, even though there are "growing pains".

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly.

And that's bad?

Some of us didn't need the 14th Amendment to recognize our neighbors, but I'm glad it's there for you.

I don't need the 14th Amendment to recognize that I should be treated as equally as white, protestant men. However, it seems that you need something like that to realize that homosexuals should be recognized as humans with rights, equal rights.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Because that's the will of God, not man.

Your religious beliefs come up again in this discussion of law. Why am I not surprised? FYI, your god's will has nothing to do with my desire to procreate or not. People don't need to ask your god permission before deciding to have children or trying to have children. Anyone can vow to, at least, try to have children if they want. Your gods have nothing to do with it.

I'm arguing that procreation is the blessing of marriage, because God created it so.

That's just more religious garbage. Secular law shouldn't be based on YOUR religious views or anyone elses. Procreation happens, with and without marriage.

You might be fond of your own children, but I could be wrong.

So what? I don't want to have kids.

It sure changed me.

You're still a buffoon.

Believe me, I'm not sure if I'd like the idea of you procreating, but it would likely make you a better man.

How?

 

[Antiquehunter]

Huntster - your arguments are getting convoluted by your religious meanderings. No one is suggesting SSM should be advocated or even allowed by churches - I agree that a church should be free to mandate whom IT chooses to marry.

But last I heard, America and Canada have separation of church and state - and as such, our laws are not subject to 'gods laws'.

All this gobbledegook about procreation being the blessing of marriage because god made it so may be relevant to you, but I see no pertinence to our discussion here.

For the record, Mark & I have no intention to personally raise children - we're barely responsible enough to look after our cats. However we can contribute to the raising of other people's children by paying our taxes, and helping out as needed by our procreating friends.

-AH.

(edited for a typo.)

 

[Huntster]

...I don't need the 14th Amendment to recognize that

I should be treated as equally as white, protestant men.

However, it seems that you need something like that to realize that homosexuals should be recognized as humans with rights, equal rights.

Ummmmmm........

The 14th amendment makes no mention of "white, protestant men":

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.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Are you sure you're tough enough to be treated like a "white, protestant" man?

I'd love to treat you like one.............

(Note the Amendment makes no mention whatsoever of "white, protestant men", nor "gays".)

 

[thaiboxerken]

For the record, Mark & I have no intention to personally raise children

Why does it seem that the dumber people are, the more children they spawn?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The 14th amendment makes no mention of "white, protestant men":

That's because they already were the ones with them most rights.

Are you sure you're tough enough to be treated like a "white, protestant" man?

What's that supposed to mean, dripstain?

I'd love to treat you like one.............

You'd like to buy me a beer?

 

[Antiquehunter]

There does seem to be a direct correlation...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because that's the will of God, not man.

Your religious beliefs come up again in this discussion of law. Why am I not surprised? FYI, your god's will has nothing to do with my desire to procreate or not.

Correct. You are making your own choice.

...People don't need to ask your god permission before deciding to have children or trying to have children. Anyone can vow to, at least, try to have children if they want. Your gods have nothing to do with it....

You are correct that you don't have to ask for permission.

But God may well have something to do with it.

I'm arguing that procreation is the blessing of marriage, because God created it so.

...Secular law shouldn't be based on YOUR religious views or anyone elses. Procreation happens, with and without marriage.

Yup.

Believe me, I'm not sure if I'd like the idea of you procreating, but it would likely make you a better man.

How?

Maybe if you lived for somebody else for a while, you'd grow up.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster - your arguments are getting convoluted by your religious meanderings. No one is suggesting SSM should be advocated or even allowed by churches - I agree that a church should be free to mandate whom IT chooses to marry.

But last I heard, America and Canada have separation of church and state - and as such, our laws are not subject to 'gods laws'.

All this gobbledegook about procreation being the blessing of marriage because god made it so may be relevant to you, but I see no pertinence to our discussion here.

Agreed.

So where is the problem?

For the record, Mark & I have no intention to personally raise children - we're barely responsible enough to look after our cats. However we can contribute to the raising of other people's children by paying our taxes, and helping out as needed by our procreating friends..

You're already paying your taxes, and helping out as needed.

Why do you need to be "married" to do that?

 

[Huntster]

Why does it seem that the dumber people are, the more children they spawn?

Maybe because those who don't know any better didn't have kids.

They're still teenagers:

I know, Dad.....

I'm always right.......

(See sig lines.........)