A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

A partnership can be many things from a marriage to a business partnership, to a sporting event partnership. For that matter partnerships are not necessarily limited to two people. Partnership, like marriage, has multiple meanings, definitions and applications.

 

It is not a lie.
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/incest-laws-united-states
For some specific examples:

Note that all the relations are only at most two steps away. Child to parent to parent's sibling for example. Such is most cases. I have never seen more than three steps, except Michigan with is 4, which means first cousins are not allowed in some places, and are allowed in others. Second cousins have never been a problem. They are 5 steps away, for the record.

But let's look at a few more states just to be sure. Let's use a more comprehensive resource: https://www.ndaa.org/pdf/criminal_incest chart _2010.pdf

You can look up the rest. Most go in the same vein (no puns intended), but quite a number include relationships that are not blood related.

 

Keep in mind that the word "marriage" in various languages originate from various sources. So unless you are going to make that argument that only those words that have a similar origin to the English word are actual marriages, then marriage throughout history have been more than just one man one woman. Even the Bible give many examples of polygyny, a marriage of one man and many wives.

Of course not. A business partnership would not be a marriage. A marriage is a partnership for the purposes of establishing a singular household. Children may or may not be involved. Sex may or may not be involved. Both usually are, but not always, not even among opposite sexed couples.

The government does not require any ceremony to make it binding, especially not a religious one. Now they do allow for a member of the clergy to be to the one to sign the paper, but they do not require it. And technically, a judge isn't required to perform any ceremony. Provide the law that says otherwise, if you think I am wrong. He or she might be required to have witnesses and to ask the couple questions to ensure that the union is consensual, but that doesn't require a ceremony to occur.

Ultimately, it is only the legal status that the SS groups can obtain. They can hope that it will provide the then same social status, but only the legal status can be guarantee. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is a fool and an idiot. A legal marriage is similar to a religious marriage but it is not the same, even among opposite sexed couple. Trying to make any argument from the basis of a religious marriage is ultimately a red herring. As shown above, the legal definition does not have to match exactly any other definition.

 

Then what in the bloody blue blazes are you arguing? What is your point and stance on SSM?

 

No law ever banned a religious or social marriage. However, there were laws that prohibited same sex couples from obtaining a legal marriage.

 

Which is also false. You just call all of our argument strawmen and then act like we've not provided anything.

 

Yes, that's right.

 

And polyandry, a marriage of one woman and many husbands.
Marriage has always, it would appear, been defined as a union between one or more members of opposite sex, a man and a woman, a man and more than one woman, and a woman and more than one man. While I am not a proponent of polygyny or polyandry, communicatively a man claiming to be in a polygynous marriage is indicative of his having multiple wives, while a woman making such claim would be indicative of her being one of a number of other women having the same husband. In addition, a claim by a woman to be in a polyandrous marriage would be indicative of her having multiple husbands, while a man making such claim would be indicative of his being one of a number of other men having the same wife.

Well, then let's call it a household agreement for government purposes.

For governmental purposes a binding contract should be all that is necessary. Eliminate marriage licenses entirely.

Now you're becoming overtly contemptuous.
I agree that a legal union between two SS persons should be recognized by law having the same duties and responsibilities as currently legally defined and applied to a MF couple being called married, without need of either being called a marriage. As for how members of society wish to view it, is a personal choice of each individual, within limits of the law.
It is my opinion that the 1st Amendment guarantees us each individually the right to beliefs which differ from one another, and to peaceably assemble, essentially the right to associate or not with others.

 

Yep, and polygamy covers not only both of those types but also marriages where there is multiple husbands and multiple wives, such as mine. Polygamy is just one of the many variations to which the word, regardless of the language, marriage has be defined as.

We are in agreement here that no matter the name, the legal application has to be exactly the same no matter what the combination of people. As I have said, the only restrictions need to be consenting and adult. However, there is no need to change the name from marriage. Aside from the fact that marriage has been practiced in many combinations across the world throughout time, words and concepts evolve throughout time and end up holding different, although sometimes similar, meanings. Both are still valid. For example, the word and holiday of Christmas has evolved quite a bit over the centuries. Christmas has become a very commercial holiday celebrated by even atheists. There is now the religious holiday of Christmas, and the "commercial" holiday of Christmas. If you are going to advocate that legal marriage have another name other than marriage then you need to be also advocating that the non-religious trappings of the holiday also get a new name. The irony is that those who want a different name for the holiday are (as a general rule) the ones who want to use marriage for the legal institution, and the ones who want to have a different name for the legal institution of marriage, are the ones who insist that the holiday can only be Christmas.

 

That's really grasping.
I'm satisfied to agree that we are incapable of achieving agreement on the issue, and leave it that.

 

You don't need to ask me any questions in order to identify what I said that is false.

Wow. Do you not comprehend basic English? Wouldn't mean that at all. It means that marriage doesn't obligate a woman, giving birth does. It doesn't obligate a man, married to another man. It doesn't obligate a woman married to a woman. MARRIAGE ONLY obligates a man married to the mother of the child. Its a fact that your silly ideology wont allow you to accept.

 

Nope. They are many marriages, each and every one between a man and a woman. The wives didn't marry each other.

 

Then why do 50 states prohibit closely related couples from marrying?.......... Because equality isn't the goal here. Winning more "respect and dignity" for gays is the goal.

 

IDENTIFY WHAT IS FALSE.

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;....

 

I didn’t, the question I asked is the same one I’ve been asking for pages - one that you cannot answer.

First, you can not use words as an absolute, I illustrated this.
Second, this has nothing to do with marriage. A biological father is obligated in most cases regardless of his marital status, a non-biological father is not held responsible in most cases regardless of his marital status.

Nothing to do with marriage - Your statement is false

I’m not sure what “silly ideology” you are referring to? If you mean the support of marriage equality, I guess I fit in with the other 2/3’s of Americans as well as the bulk of our courts and SCOTUS that understand basic law and freedom, as well the majority in 48 states (and almost all of those with post secondary education). You fit in with Americans over 70 years old, blacks and evangelicals; also the majority of the two lowest educated states Alabama and Mississippi and people with less than a high school degree...

You are really having trouble with this, go back and consult your talking points.

 

No you didn't. You demonstrated you couldn't even comprehend what I said.

That would make it irrelevant, not false.

That doesn't contradict a thing Ive said

 

Your statement that only marriage makes a man obligated for his offspring is not true.

This is simply another pathetic attempt to steer the conversation off topic because you cannot debate the topic.


Care to go on topic?
Why should same sex marriage not be recognized?

 

Theres the strawman you've been arguing with for a couple days now. Never said any such thing. You cant take my one use of "only" and apply it to any and every word in the sentence. The statement was that ONLY a man is obligated by marriage to provide and care for any child his wife bears

 

You know that is a lie.

No you didn’t.

 

SFJEFF refuted this moronic claim 4years ago, lol.

 

Here would have been the appropriate place to simply copy and paste the law that banned anyone from marrying

 

Here are
About 274 results (0.60 seconds) that show otherwise

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=..._occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Got anything other than the random thoughts bouncing around in your head or your vague memories of 4 years ago?

 

He is not liable for any child she bears as per your original statement. This is verifiably false.

The statement that, ‘presumption of pertanity only applies to men in marriage’ would have been an accurate statement - but that isn’t what you said.

So I guess that’s a big no on trying to go back on topic?

 

Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted as of 2012 [link with complete lists]

Not to mention the states that banned “marriage like unions” for same sex couples

From a state that aligns perfectly with your standards: (lowest education score in America)
Article XIV, section 263A of the Mississippi Constitution, states:

Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.

 

Here is my "original" statement from Monday morning. Ive restated it several times since then

The fact that such a man could also go to court in a paternity action, show through genetic testing that in fact he is not the father, and be released of any such obligation STILL doesn't contradict the above statement you still cannot comprehend.

Perhaps the fact that all husbands are men has escaped your notice

The topic is selected by the other poster to whom I was responding. Not you.