Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Oh, I think everybody here but YOU can see the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman. Notice you are the only one arguing it doesnt. Your ideology forms your delusions. The meaning of the written word is but a minor inconvenience to your ideology.
Six states disagree with you. Soon to be seven.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
As has been stated before, posting a hundred plus year old law doesn't do much to help your case.
Times changes, so do the laws.
Your attempt to divert the actual issues by posting a hundred year old state law does nothing but show your desperation to avoid the actual issues.
Let me address the hypocracy related to a comment by Mitt Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-h-town-hall/Quote:
Romney said. “That’s why as a society we say we’re going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years or longer — a relationship between one man and one woman.”
While it is technically inaccurate because numerous exceptions have been cited the position is that a "family always consisted of a man and a woman in marriage" based upon religious dogma for 6000 years. The argument is basically that anything that has existed for 6000 years must be acceptable even though times and circumstances change dramatically.
This would provide the argument for reinstalling slavery in America because slavery existed for 6000 years and existed in America until the 1860's. Of course none of us would accept that as being a valid argument for slavery. Times changed and even though slavery had a 6000 year reign it is no longer acceptable under US law or international law.
Times have also changed related to the family. No longer is the family only comprised of a man and a woman. Today same-sex couples are raising children, merging their financial assets, purchasing home together and even facing bankruptcy together. Same-sex couples, at least in the case of lesbians, even enjoy pregnancy through artificial sperm donors literally "pro-creating" within their family relationship.
The family has changed and today it includes same-sex couples and they should be afforded the identical Rights and Privileges under the law that other families are also granted. Not special Rights or Privileges but instead the identical Rights and Privileges as any other family.
Age old bigoted religious beliefs should not be denying the identical Rights for same-sex families that are afforded to opposite-sex families. Extending equal protection under the law does not infringe in any manner on the Rights of Opposite-Sex couples or marriage and equal protection under the law is a protected Right for all Individuals under the 14th Amendment.
You are hopelessly lost. The debate is whether Californias statuteQuote:
Originally Posted by Osiris Faction
1872 CALIFORMIA
Quote:
Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage
limited marriage to a man and a woman. It did. No state disagrees with me. Anyone with a basic grasp of the english language can see that it does limit marriage to a man and a woman. Doesnt say any male OR any female can consent to marriage. It CLEARLY states any male AND any female can consent to marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Why not address the post of mine you chose to quote and include within your post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
No. The cited Chinese "contracts", "partnerships" and "arrangements" between same sex couples isnt "marriage" between same sex couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
Nonsense. Men and women becoming fathers and mothers is a function of biology, not religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Quote:
1872 CALIFORMIA
Hundred year old law, that is no longer relevant. It goes against current consent laws.Quote:
any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old
More over it states that they areMeaning they can consent and consummate a marriage.Quote:
capable of consenting to and consummating marriage
Big whoop, doesn't have anything to do with today, seeing as the law is outdated and no longer enforced.
Unless you think fifteen year old women can marry without parental consent?
Come on, stop trying to divert.
???? It DIRECTLY contradicts the assertion made 100 times by Rahl and Shiva thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Osiris Faction
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Today two women that create a family were both become pregnant with donor sperm at the same time which even trumps traditional marriage where only one pregnancy can occur at any specific time. If marriage was exclusively about propagation of the human race then lesbians have opposite-sex couples beat by 2:1.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Denying the fact that the "family" has changed over time so that today gays and lesbians are engaged in identical "family" situations of raising children, purchasing homes, sharing assets and liabilities, and even facing bankruptcy as opposite-sex couples in the past merely reflects ignorance and bigotry. Time for people to get their minds out of the 19th Century and join the rest of us in the 21 Century.
Your claim is thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
And you think the advent of artificial insemination in the last few decades does ANYTHING for marriage "for 6000 years". Whatever.Quote:
"family always consisted of a man and a woman in marriage" based upon religious dogma for 6000 years.
Actually I don't claim that marriage only existed between one man and one woman for the last 6000 years. Mitt Romney claimed that and it is false. Overwhelmingly marriage existed between one man and several women for the last 6000 years so based upon that argument Mitt Romney should be advocating polygamy (oops, I forgot that Romney's a Mormon and the Mormon's did support polygamy in the past and only dropped that religious belief so that Utah would be accepted as a state).Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
And actually what I stated is the the definition of "family" has changed and that marriage is about the family. As noted, time to get out of the 19th Century and into the 21st Century. We don't have slavery anymore and today gays and lesbians form families and raise children exactly like opposite-sex couples.
BTW was the fact that this morning the 9th District Court of Appeal has upheld the lower Court's decision that Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment been mentioned? One more nail the the coffin of bigoted discrimination.