The court doesn't rule on the basis of nature it rules on the basis of the Constitution. However the oberfel argument was a little weak From a legal point, what is the purpose of traditional Marriage? Further I wouldn't put restrictions on any marriage between a male and a female that wouldn't apply equally to same sex couples.
I don't think legal recognition of marriage should exist at all. I don't know why it does. I don't see why it's the state's business.
Discussing one's beliefs on a certain subject is a different ball game from trying to blanket the discussion with one particular view.
Countries that consider themselves "enlightened" are generally headed for their doom. History bears that out. Walk humbly with your God.
So far no one recognizes the contributions each sex has to their offspring. There are attributes to each that are not had by the other. The unification of those attributes is the ideal for raising healthy children. When the culture turns it's back on these facts it will see it's demise. Some of these facts are physical and some are spiritual. It is understandable that many will not grasp the latter. Those of us opposed to the redefining of marriage do so out of concern for the culture in which we raise our families.....not to deny individuals for engaging in their lusts.
Stable families are generally the bi product of marriage. They are far fewer than they were decades ago. What you describe as family generally includes children that are raised by the hand of government through welfare payments, foster homes etc. For some, they can't see any improvement beyond that. A thought process no higher than the lower animals.
Because words matter. Using marriage to describe a gay relationship changes the word marriage. Better to coin a new word for the relationship.
Add in Children to the equation and suddenly it looks like a good idea for male to female marriages. Making it the states business gives the state an excuse to keep divorce in the state as well. Causing a lot of misery.
The Supreme Court does not define marriage. The Supreme Court is not an Oligarchy. False Authority Fallacy.
People have the right to freedom of assocation. ETA - I noticed the sub forum is labeled Gay and Lesbian Rights. There are no such things as gay and lesbian rights. There are only Individual rights.
Yes it is. Once again, you are conflating 'actuality' with 'principle'. Even if they cannot reproduce in actuality, that is irrelevant to their ability to reproduce in principle. The principle of it all is what the definition is based on; it has nothing to do with what happens in actuality. No idea what you are trying to assert here. No, it's a very sound position.
I have always asserted we are hung up on the word here. "Marriage" is how we have always determined what the relationship between one man and one women should be. There is power in words. The Mormons promoted "polygamy". That was a union between one man and multiple wives. It was defined as "polygamy". As I said, there is power in words and most family oriented people hold the union between one man and one women as sacred. We define it as marriage. So why can't same sex unions be defined by different words? They don't seem to like "civil union" which was always available. Invent a whole new word....then those that wish can hold it sacred. Our language defines differences and there most definitely is a difference in how we define Unions between two or more people. Let's don't dumb down our language and confuse the children!
Marriage is exclusive to heterosexual couples because they, and only they, can procreate in principle. Homosexual couples cannot procreate in principle. Yup, they can... but they would require making use of artificial insemination, a surrogate mother, past heterosexual relations, or adoption of a child from another heterosexual couple. In other words, it is not natural for homosexuals to build families. It is not part of the natural order. Those kids have already been taken away from their parents. Yes. It is unnatural for homosexuals to build a family. It has negative effects on those children, as they don't have a mother and a father, they don't have their biological parents, and they see unnatural things as if those things were natural. See above. No, the government doesn't define marriage at all, no matter the type. The government has no legislative power over marriage. See Article I Section VIII of the US Constitution, as well as Amendment X. Call it a civil union, that's fine by me, but it is not a marriage nor can it ever be one.
but it's not though. There's been places there are same sex couples could get married for 20 years So what? Marriage is a legal status has nothing to do with natural order. or their parents died or didn't want them, or couldn't raise them. if they live in a house with air conditioning or ride to school in a car or a school bus that's unnatural. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy See above. the government does define legal marriage. And if we go by the oberfel argument, the was a legislative act, so yes they do have that power. I can call it a marriage and I'm okay with it not being fine with you, because you have no authority over that.
that actually makes it a worse idea. Because not only we know in the man divorce do they scrub each other's lives they screw up the life of an innocent third party. it's also not illegal to commit adultery two marriages in The binding covenant anymore. That happened in the 1960s.
You can call a horse a pig, or a boy a girl, but that doesn't define what they really are. You can call anything, anything you want. You have THAT authority.
That's what we're discussing is one's opinion on this. I don't know what you mean by blanket the discussion with one particular view.
I was twice divorced over my protest. Still my children had wonderful lives due to my constant support for them both.
No it's legal status. Telling a marriage between two people of the same sex is not to offend your sensibilities, that's lip service.