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

Same way Interracial marriages were not considered a real marriage because real marriages are only of ones own Race ?
Bigotry plain and simple.

No, it is Marriage, like it or not and it is here to stay.
Get used to it !
Pbblllllttttt.

 

Not in Italy ... if you're married in US in Italy you're "united in a civil way" ... [even if a lot of marriages are a bit ill-mannered!].

I will have to pay attention when I will be in US ...

BTW, how can I understand who is the father and who is the mother? Or I will deal with two mothers or two fathers?

 

How about two caring parents that love their children ?
Two Aunts ?
Two Uncles ?

See here in America the idea is to disenfranchise same sex marriages as far as healthcare and insurance and inheritance and child custody and other legal issues, so foreign nations recognition is not a direct issue necessarily.

 

We are discussing on an international forum comparing opinions and viewpoints ... I don't expect Americans to want foreign recognition of this or that [?!? You are moving the US embassy c/o Israel against the opinion of the large majority of the countries member of UN, so ... btw, about that I agree with US administration].

From what you say I could wonder if it would be possible to have marriages made by more than two individuals. Why not? What about a marriage composed by 4 men or 5 women? Why not?

Or in US there is a certain bigotry about polygamy? [Same gender or not].

 

Look, first of all here in the U.S. We have certain Civil Rights that protect U.S. Citizens property Rights and rights to healthcare and retirement and other Civil benefits in the U.S. and we cannot force other Countries to be like America as it should be their own choice and of their citizens to live free or not.

Polygamy is not a custom here in the U.S. yet, it is not popular, however, other Countries can accommodate it if they wish as does African and Arab nations for example...

 

This is true. I know a Senegalese Muslim immigrant who works in Italy 6 months per year. He's got two wives in Senegal [I don't envy him ...].

If we leave the matter of definitions and we move the debate on the layer of human contexts, I'm even in favor of adoption of abandoned children by singles [it's illegal in Italy]. Even if ... I would check a lot the individual before of allowing this.

 

Actually two women raising a boy will have a better well rounded individual.

 

the poster never mentioned conservatives, do you assume only conservatives are against marriage equality?

 

There are also children nobody wants, I remember this boy in another Country that his parents kicked him out because he was gay, nobody would help him, I let him stay in a little cabin on the property and finally an Aunt took him in, sometimes, they kill people in other Countries for that.

 

You can always think what you want, but when you make given assertions, especially when the assertion isn't accompanied by statements making it clear it is just a thought or opinion, expected to be countered by facts and history that shows your assertion wrong. You didn't say, "that's not a marriage in my opinion". Your post implied your position was fact.

As to your second part, as I pointed out, the word marriage has many applications, and all different. A legal marriage isn't the same as a religious one, nor are marriages under two different religions. I can accept it if you claim that such is not considered a marriage per your religion. In that manner you are not claiming such is not a marriage period.

 

A mother is a female...a father is a male.....figure it out

 

the u.s. is a constitutional republic end the majority does not get to dictate to the minority. This cannot be voted on nor can the right to free speech or the right to bear arms.

I couldn't possibly care less what you think.

Further you were requesting that other people not call their marriage marriage because it bothers you. Be bothered and deal with it yourself it's your problem.

I am going to call it marriage your request is denied.

meaning they don't matter. Do all matters because if you break it you face recompense. Personal Persuasions don't matter because if you disagree well then you just disagree.

 

Bottom line;
Here in AMERICA, It is legal for two women to marry.
It is legal for two men to marry.
There are many considerations why this is a good thing.
Whether or not Religion finds it acceptable is irrelevant.
Whether or not foreign nations consider it marriage is irrelevant to life in America.

 

This is obvious ... in US you've got death penalty, in other countries they consider it a barbarian punishment. Sovereignty is that curious thing that states that any country can give to itself its own laws and follow them without external interference.

But this doesn't mean that we cannot discuss ... [how many times Americans discuss foreign matters, even interfering with the internal politics of other countries?].

In my opinion the "family" is the natural one. In the world of apes [which are social animals] enlarged families exist [groups of chimps live together, like gorillas, and this is not limited to mother, father and children ... there are uncles, taunts, grandmothers, grandfathers ... well, usually among gorillas there is only one: the gray back]. Human beings, overall in developed societies have tent to limit this behavior, but it's still there. So that, I've got nothing to say about enlarged families.

What probably remains my basic persuasion is that in a natural family there has to be at least one natural parent. Nowadays divorce is so common that one parent families are no more rare to meet.

Now, today, thanks to cloning techs, two men or two women can have their own children without a third donator [that is to say that you can have a child cloning your own cells]. But this is still illegal, so that if a one gender couple wants a child there are some options:

to adopt a child, to have a child with a woman renting out her uterus [or in case of a couple made by two women, obtaining seed from a donor].

This would anyway allow the presence of at least a natural parent [if not in the case of adoption] and this is positive.

The second condition to have a marriage [that "thing" which was, in the past, intended to create natural families to have children and rise them] is that the two natural parents have to be of different genders [otherwise that wouldn't be a natural family].

And here comes the ratio why in Italy our law doesn't talk about "marriage", but civil unions.

 

The alternative, which is the way followed in US, it's to enlarge the meaning of the word "marriage" ["matrimonio" in Italian]. Once we enlarge this meaning, also the "civilian unions" become a form of marriage [so a marriage ...]. It's a simple semantic step, but which has got heavy political consequences in a traditional country like Italy.

A civilian union is managed by Italian law exactly like a marriage, but not about adoption: that kind of couple cannot adopt children [even if a mate has got a natural child the other mate cannot adopt it].

 

And this is the problem. Its not 'exactly like' marriage at all. Its a cheapened substitute, the crumbs off the table, second class status and an insult. Here in the States we call it the 'coloreds water fountain' treatment. There is white man's water fountain and a black persons water fountain across the street because white people could not handle the idea of sharing the same fountain. Even if the water comes from the same source, using the same pipes. Blacks knew their place every time they had to step aside the white persons fountain and cross the street....

Its not your word to own, you do not get to throw another our way and tell us to be happy and shut up, and you sure as hell have no business telling us we cannot adopt kids in exactly the same way you do. Your bigoted prejudice against us has no place in civilized policy-decision-making. You don't want a same sex marriage, don't buy a license and marry someone of the same gender. We are not second class trash, you get to treat to a second class license with a different name and second class rights attached.

 

So the only difference is the word? Seems a dumb thing to have a stand about.

 

You may not have noticed, I live in America, not Italia, why ?
Because here in America, we have freedoms most people in Europe only dream about.

 

Not exactly. Italian Constitution [articles 29-31] defines the family as the "natural society" based on marriage.

Italy didn't want to make civilian unions legal, but EU forced Rome to issue a law. Now, since the Constitution makes clear reference to the natural family [otherwise it wouldn't be a "natural society" based on marriage] our parliament wasn't in condition to issue a law about same gender marriage [it would have been not constitutional and the Constitutional Court would have erased it]. It was necessary to find a different definition and a differentiation [about adoption].

P.S. EU has accepted this compromise.

 

Seems a lot to go through to feel superior.

 

Italy is largely a Catholic Country, so you should expect such, it really has nothing to do with feelings of superiority etc....

 

LOL, There is a lot of irony here if read up on the tenets and history of Catholicism and Christianity . More than one non-Christian and protestant will claim that a sense of superiority is the chrysalis from which those two butterflies emerged centuries ago and it has nothing to do with this issue alone. That sense of superiority may have taken a lot of forms in Christianity and catholocism.

 

It's more interesting from a cultural / legal perspective [btw, I'm Protestant, not Catholic, but this is irrelevant].

The Kingdom of Italy had a Constitution as well [it was a constitutional monarchy], but that Constitution didn't define the family. The Kingdom came from Piedmont a quite lay and industrialized land [it's where I live], where Freemasonry was and is present and actually Turin was a bit "anti-Papacy". Imagine that when the Kingdom conquered Rome, the Pope asked to Catholics not to vote in Italian elections and substantially he considered the Italian Kingdom an enemy of the Church.

The situation changed a lot with Fascism, when Mussolini wanted to regain the relations with the Papacy. Furthermore Fascism used the family as a real "political unit".

So, when the Kingdom fell, the Republicans [in good part Communist and Socialist, so lay politicians] had to write a new Constitution.

Scholars of constitutional right actually wonder why they put a definition of the family in the Republican Constitution.

Why?

Someone says just to protect the traditional values. In this case the Catholic members of the Constituency would have made pressures on the others who, anyway, obtained to base the Constitution on a Socialist base ...

Art. 1

Quite Socialist, I would say.

So probably there was a balance: work for the Communists/Socialists, the family for the Catholics.

Today Italy is well less traditionalist [anyway remember that until 1973 divorce was illegal and to leave the conjugal house was a crime!], so that we are making some progresses at social levels. But some barriers are still there, probably it's about our cultural environment. I tend to think that I've got a quite opened mind. Anyway about family I feel there is something to preserve.

 

Wrong. Religious freedom is enshrined in the 1st Amendment, it is a fundamental freedom. Government recognized marriage is a regulation essentially derived through contract law - and marriage is far outside the constitutional bounds of the federal govt.

The only real issue with govt recognized marriage is that the govt awards financial benefits and legal position based on marital status. That's where the true conflict lies - it places a fundamental right against the power of the govt to engage in social engineering. The fundamental right should win hands down, but since the legal system has left the constitution far behind, that's not been happening.

 

Religion and Religious freedom is not being discussed here, only the Right of marriage as it relates to the ones getting married as upheld by law, so that Religion and Religious practice or objections to same sex Marriages is irrelevant as are objections to interracial marriages.

Hence protections are in place to prevent Religious law over secular law governing such matters, separation of Church & State...etc..