A rationalist point of view on gay marriage

For as long as I can recall, I've known that homosexuality is exceedingly wrong. I've always known that promiscuity in any form is wrong. It's not a matter of religion or mans constructs. It's a matter of conscience.

I've always known that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is an impossibility. Legalizing or recognizing homosexual marriage is a mockery of conscience that legitimizes perversity and denigrates marriage. This, by its presence and example, aids in misleading and corrupting children or the upcoming generation. By and large, Americans used to know and practice these basics of civility and responsible behavior in deference to the innocence of children and the possibility of an unseen God who might be watching and measuring our behavior. For certain, we know what we have done. And from that, there is no escape.

 

Yeah, they can always choose not to do any weddings.

 

???? UNEQUAL by design, treating the married differently than the unmarried. Previously done to improve the wellbeing of children. Now done to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of homosexuals.

 

Nope. The notion of marriage had nothing to do with the well being of children and EVERYTHING to do with property rights.

Apparently, there are some who believe that equal civil rights can only be enjoyed by people who believe as they do, which paradoxically is precisely why the notion of equal rights is enshrined in the constitution.

Go figure it would be conservative Christians who feel so put upon because they can't impose their beliefs on those that don't.
.

 

I do not believe that, have a link to a preacher being fined for not officiating at weddings

if that is true, that is a problem and he needs to fight it as it's unconstitutional... but as we saw with same gender marriage bans, unconstitutional laws sometimes get passed, we need to address such laws when they happen


.

 

ah, so that is the case they were talking about, you are 100% correct

they have to rent the property, but not preform the actual wedding

.

 

Nonsense. In ancient Mesopotamia, a marriage was similar to the purchase of a slave, except if she didn't produce a child, the purchaser was due a refund. In ancient, BC Roman law

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

"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."

Or even the Supreme Court of the US.


"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

"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... 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."

 

Most of the gay people I know in their 40s and 50s, used to be married to someone of the opposite sex. No one stopped them from marrying because they were gay.

 

Except we don't follow mesopotamian or roman law.

Nor are laws restricting sex to married couples valid, nor are laws barring married couples the use of contraceptives.
That's 3 man, you struck out.

 

If you behave in a bigoted manner and express bigoted opinions, well...

If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

 

I could not have said that any better! without a doubt!!

 

The assertion was "marriage had nothing to do..." past tense, Soooo I retreived references from the past. And I also provided the two supreme court quotes referring to our institution of marriage in the US.

 

You'll notice they kept marriage and procreation separate. They did so for a reason. Gosh I do wonder what that reason might be?

 

and here I thought my statement was unambiguous.

Odd that there are so many who aren't all that familiar with the concept.

 

It was. Make a relevant point and put it into words, if you can. The right could be enjoyed by anyone of any beliefs. .

 

Sorry, it was all about property rights.

And since the mother could be almost certainly ascertained, but the father not in ancient times, it was marriage that the entire principle of property rights and inheritance was predicated on. A bastard could typically not inherit.

As for a woman being chattel, that has been going on since the dawn of civilization. Does the term dowry mean anything to you?

 

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. How did they separate them? One is a legal institution and the other is a biological process. Where did you get the idea they were two parts of a whole that needed to be separated? And, every state has this or similar statutes

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;

The link between marriage and procreation, as old as the institution itself. From BC Roman law-

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

 

They mentioned them as separate rights. Marriage AND procreation. They are separate.

And yes one of the many benefits of marriage is presumption of paternity. That does not mean it is the sole or main benefit of marriage, nor has it prevented millions of men from being cuckolded over the years.

More roman law. You realize we're talking US law yeah? You REALLLLY don't want to adopt roman law.


Also:

 

It was always between a man and a woman because only women give birth and only a man is responsible for her doing so. Also from BC Roman law.

"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."

The fact that it also transferred property doesn't change that fact.

 

Apparently not.

It appears you have a rather peculiar perspective on what is germane to an argument, even when its spelled out plainly.

As for unambiguous, what "right" are you talking about that can be enjoyed by anyone of any belief? have you switched your position on SSM?

 

What other societal benefit is there? Without the concern for the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce, there really wouldn't be any need for government involvement. Couples having orgasms doesn't give rise to any governmental concerns.

 

That would be the same "rights" you refer to. LIKE I SAID, most of the gays I know in their 40s or 50s in fact exercised their rights earlier in life by marrying someone of the opposite sex. I think for many gays in their 20s and 30s, starting a family was more important than sexual gratification. Now in their 40s and 50s, with children, sexual gratification takes precedence.

 

The orderly transmission of property and the assignment of mulitple rights through a single transaction rather than several.

 

Well, I don't see the societal benefit of transmission of property, other than convenience for those transferring the property, but wouldn't these benefits be present for ANY TWO consenting adults wishing to transfer property and secure such rights? What would be the justification for excluding the single mother and grandmother down the street from this benefit. They now own and have titled their home jointly, have a joint bank account. Have mutual provisions in their wills transferring all property to the other upon death. Grandmother has adopted her grandchildren, since their father is dead. Before that she became a legal guardian of the grandchildren. Had a medical power of attorney on each of them. All these multiple transactions to transfer property and secure rights, and yet they are excluded by law in all 50 states from marrying, while two 18yr old guys, young, dumb, full of cum and not any property between them must have this convenience, withheld by law from others????? Whats the justification. ALL discrimination must meet constitutional requirements, not just that affecting gays.

 

No, they can choose not to run a for profit business that performs weddings. As non-profit religious organization they can perform all the heterosexual marriages they want for fees and discriminate against same sex couples. They don't have to stop performing weddings.