How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

poet said:
Gays being able and marrying is hardly redefining marriage. Don't like gay marriage, don't marry anybody gay.
Click to expand...

Man and woman, husband and wife, mohers and fathers. It requires turning the institution upside down and inside out. Stretched and contorted beyond anything recognizable to anyone familiar with the past.
 
dixon76710 said:
matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

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."
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.

http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx
Click to expand...

from your link--
The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.


I always smile when people bring up Hallahan when it comes to the use of the dictionary rather than a legal definition. In this case, it is precisely the absence of a legal definition in Kentucky that allowed the court to use the common definition.

In Kentucky's Jones v. Hallahan in 1973, for example, the Court of Appeals noted that the state statutes relating to marriage did not include a definition of marriage at all. The judges resorted to three dictionary definitions, most of which at the time mentioned "men" and "women". As of today, most dictionaries define marriage as being between "two people", so presumably a new case in Kentucky would uphold the right of two men or two women to marry.


For example__- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

Marriage is a fundamental right. The government does not have an compelling interest in excluding same-sex couples from marriage that is related to procreation, because the government actually requires that some couples be unable to procreate before allowing them to marry. It also does not exclude those couples that it knows – based on information willingly provided by the couple on the application for a marriage license – are theoretically unable to procreate. So, you're argument "re" procreation simply falls apart

I believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable, familial environment in which a child can be raised.

I believe in the economy and society benefit from such unions. I believe that the government should encourage individuals to enter these types of contracts to gain that economic and social benefit.
 
dixon76710 said:
matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

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."
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.

http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx
Click to expand...

Right. Except, some of us and them don't subscribe to those definitions of the state. Problem?
 
dixon76710 said:
Man and woman, husband and wife, mohers and fathers. It requires turning the institution upside down and inside out. Stretched and contorted beyond anything recognizable to anyone familiar with the past.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Those are just histrionics, on your part. Some folks are not happy, unless drama is involved.
 
poet said:
For whom? My marriage, and/or me calling it that, has absolutely nothing to do with you, and impacts you in no tangible way.
Click to expand...

as I've said before, I don't care what you call it so long as I don't have to pay any attention to you......if, however, you attempt to use the law to make me recognize what you have as a marriage you've impacted me......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as I've said before, I don't care what you call it so long as I don't have to pay any attention to you......if, however, you attempt to use the law to make me recognize what you have as a marriage you've impacted me......
Click to expand...

How does it "impact" you, will you be forced into a gay marriage?

How exactly will it impact you personally?
 
has anyone else noticed that the same people who argue gay marriage has no impact on the rest of us are usually the same folks who think the world will come to an end if they hear someone pray at a public event?........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if I am free to ignore it it doesn't.....am I free to ignore it?......poet seems to think I can't......is he right or are you right?........
Click to expand...

Poet seems to think that you can't? Do I control you? Do you not possess the free will to ignore whatever you choose to ignore? You can ignore the sun in the sky, still, it will be shining brightly. Ignore all you want. It doesn't change the reality.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
has anyone else noticed that the same people who argue gay marriage has no impact on the rest of us are usually the same folks who think the world will come to an end if they hear someone pray at a public event?........
Click to expand...

6 of one, half a dozen of another. I have been married since 2003, and if I didn't tell you that I was married, you wouldn't know about it.....meaning that it has no impact on you, save your mindset to "be right". Praying at a public event, where others are gathered who may not want to pray, or hear prayers is a different matter, especially if the event is non-religious in nature. Prayer should be a personal, quiet matter. People pray, quietly, to themselves...all the time. Even I pray at odd times. But I don't make it a spectacle. To do so would be to infringe on the rights of others, who may or may not be free to leave the shared space. It's like cigarette smoking. Some people have the common decency to ask if someone minds if they smoke. And some assholes could give a fuck who they impact, physically, with their smoke. Gay marriage doesn't impact others, physically...now does it? Now debate that.
 
poet said:
Marriage doesn't need to be redefined.
Click to expand...


I agree, marriage should not be redefined.....and unless it is.....men can't marry men or women marry women.....

And you can shove your "gay rights" up your anus, and live the same the rights and rules as the rest of us live with.....

We certainly shouldn't be making special exceptions/rights for anyone.......
 
bravo said:
I agree, marriage should not be redefined.....and unless it is.....men can't marry men or women marry women.....

And you can shove your "gay rights" up your anus, and live the same the rights and rules as the rest of us live with.....

We certainly shouldn't be making special exceptions/rights for anyone.......
Click to expand...

Really? Well, guess what? I'm fucking married...and it's only a short matter of time, before the State of Texas falls in line with other states that acknowledge it.

And you really have lost your monkey mind, suggesting what I should do with my anus. Since you're so fixated, why don't you find things to stick up yours? And twirl on it.
Everyone has the right to be legally bound to the love of their life, which no man can put asunder...not you, not anyone in here. There are no special exceptions or rights to be extended...just the same rights. Equal rights...you POS. You don't dictate what I do. And if you think you do, I invite you to try.
 
dixon76710 said:
I wasnt suggesting ANYTHING other than what I stated, The majority of blacks oppose same sex marriage. Read my words and stop with the dumfounded stare at the blank space between them, pondering their meaning.
Click to expand...

You're asserting that a majority of Blacks voted in California and against Prop 8; but that isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top