The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.
Okay. The carrot comment made me laugh.
It’s obviously a gay carrot.
Contine.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.[/quote]
I know someone who married a friend for the military benefits. Both are straight and see other people.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.[/quote]
I know someone who married a friend for the military benefits. Both are straight and see other people.[/quote]
That’s not exactly on par with “A couple of drinking buddies just feel like it”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.[/quote]
I know someone who married a friend for the military benefits. Both are straight and see other people.[/quote]
That’s not exactly on par with “A couple of drinking buddies just feel like it”[/quote]
Well, they are drinking buddies…
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.[/quote]
I know someone who married a friend for the military benefits. Both are straight and see other people.[/quote]
That’s not exactly on par with “A couple of drinking buddies just feel like it”[/quote]
Well, they are drinking buddies…
[/quote]
For military benefits =/= for the hell of it.
Homosexuality is all about a rare phenomenon of sexual attraction to the person of the same gender - it’s anomaly. However, its practice now accepted and allowed in some countries and in most so called west countries as long as it doesn’t offend the majority of normal people. However, in some European countries the boundaries have already been crossed…
While marriage is a completely different matter because it’s a model of society and if our elected politicians allow to officially get married these people with sexual abnormalities they will be supporting this unproductive long term relationship - “family” model. I think not being prosecuted for sex with the same gender is already enough for this anomaly… of course, once you get a lot, you want more… but this, in the long run, would probably do more harm than good for the society of any country…
I have nothing against homosexuality, and I don’t know how to effectively treat it, but the norms and model of society is a completely different matter.
^
Yeah. I understood.
Human rights based on sexual preferences which are considered to be anomaly… You cannot even talk about rights of pedophiles, necrophiles… why it should be an exception made for homosexuals???
[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Human rights based on sexual preferences which are considered to be anomaly… You cannot even talk about rights of pedophiles, necrophiles… why it should be an exception made for homosexuals??? [/quote]
Because neither children nor corpses are capable of entering into a contract?
That is also true for lampposts and dogs, I kid you not.
[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Homosexuality is all about a rare phenomenon of sexual attraction to the person of the same gender - it’s anomaly. However, its practice now accepted and allowed in some countries and in most so called west countries as long as it doesn’t offend the majority of normal people. However, in some European countries the boundaries have already been crossed… While marriage is a completely different matter because it’s a model of society and if our elected politicians allow to officially get married these people with sexual abnormalities they will be supporting this unproductive long term relationship - “family” model. I think not being prosecuted for sex with the same gender is already enough for this anomaly… of course, once you get a lot, you want more… but this, in the long run, would probably do more harm than good for the society of any country… I have nothing against homosexuality, and I don’t know how to effectively treat it, but the norms and model of society is a completely different matter. [/quote]
Sooooo, you would object to your tax dollars to subsidize homosexuality?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The funny thing about many of the comparisons people are making, between a gay couple and some drinking buddies, is that those exact same things could happen, now, between a man and a woman. Men and women sometimes have platonic friendships - yet they dont just randomly decide to get married. It doesn’t really follow that allowing homosexual couples to marry will lead to drinking buddies to “get married for the hell of it”.[/quote]
I know someone who married a friend for the military benefits. Both are straight and see other people.[/quote]
That’s not exactly on par with “A couple of drinking buddies just feel like it”[/quote]
Well, they are drinking buddies…
[/quote]
For military benefits =/= for the hell of it.[/quote]
But it directly assaults the sanctity of marriage, which is why IT MUST BE STOPPED!
People marrying for financial benefits, reducing it to a mere bargain, imagine that!
Jesus would have whipped them out of the temple, or some such.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sex (verb) The act of sticking a carrot up SexMachine’s ass.
There. You have your definition.[/quote]
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. You talking a Miley Cyrus sort of carrot or some kind of Richard Simmonsish/androgenous sort carrot?
EDIT: Actually maybe this belongs in SAMA?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sex (verb) The act of sticking a carrot up SexMachine’s ass.
There. You have your definition.[/quote]
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. You talking a Miley Cyrus sort of carrot or some kind of Richard Simmonsish/androgenous sort carrot?
EDIT: Actually maybe this belongs in SAMA?[/quote]
Well…
I would like to say that this is oddly arousing but it is really not.
I would hit it anyway.
…nah
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Antonio. B wrote:
Human rights based on sexual preferences which are considered to be anomaly… You cannot even talk about rights of pedophiles, necrophiles… why it should be an exception made for homosexuals??? [/quote]<<< Because neither children nor corpses are capable of entering into a contract?
That is also true for lampposts and dogs, I kid you not. [/quote]LOL!! You’re real comedian lately LOL!!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< I looked those up and did not get a definition of the purpose of marriage at all. If you can find it, please copy and paste the definition of the purpose of marriage according to US law into this thread.
That goes for anyone who can find it.[/quote]I’ll type this real slow. Jist fer you. Our founders did not feel the need to define marriage legally because they accepted the church’s definition and never dreamed THEY would need a legal one. (although adultrey and homosexuality were both illegal at the state level all over.) Listen carefully now. They relied on the preponderance of people to act like Christians on their own for their country to be strong and prosper. Are ya in there? Limited civil government made possible by Christian self government. You will make an absolute idiot of yourself if you deny that. You can hate it all ya want, but that’s how it was.
The following was a VERY widely accepted view and one which was vital to our founding and survival. Hence our present decline.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
[quote]CHAPTER XXIV.
Of Marriage and Divorce.
I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. [/quote]
I would tell you to some diggin but you won’t. Just like you probably won’t even really read this post.
[/quote]
This is the only part of that which addressed what I was talking about: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” Everything else was superfluous.
It’s too bad that the only thing you could find wasn’t an actual part of the US law. If it was, this entire argument might be worthwhile. However, it’s impossible to argue that gays or polygamous situations don’t qualify for marriage unless we have a working definition of what marriage is supposed to DO. Also, it may be that many of the people who are married today aren’t involved with the purpose of marriage and therefore shouldn’t be married either.
Once again, we need a real purpose of marriage according to law in order to say anything about marriage.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I don’t have a whole lot of time to join in the fun, but just off the top of my head, I see two major issues that married heterosexual couples enjoy and that gay couples are denied: inheritance and taxes. When a gay couple spend their LIVES together, in a monogamous relationship, accumulating assets, etc… and then one of them dies, the surviving partner has NO legal right to the property or any form of inheritance, the dead fag’s FAMILY would have all the right to it, even though they had nothing to do with it and may have even been against the relationship. A married couple enjoys these rights.
Married couples have certain tax advantages when they file jointly (not always, but in certain instances).
Why does the IRS have the right to deny GAY couples who wish to form a life together the same tax advantages?
Either make ALL marriages “civil unions” and allow ANY two consenting adults to enter into that arrangement (thus enjoying the same legal benefits), and let anyone who wants to get "married’ to get “married” in a church OR allow homosexuals to get “married” just like hetero sexual couples and grant them the same rights as everyone else…
I’m sure that there are more issues, such as the right to pull the plug or decide options during emergency surgery, etc… that should be OBVIOUS that the gay partner should have the right to make that call, but in the current way they are recognized, THEY DON’T.
Either get the LAW out of marriage, or allow ALL (as in ANY TWO individual) consenting adults regardless of gender marry. [/quote]
This is definitely along the lines of what my thoughts on the matter are. However, once again, only if these benefits were specifically written into the law as the “purpose” of marriage would someone be able to successfully argue that any adult qualifies for marriage with any other adult of their choosing.
Then again, if the above-mentioned benefits are the closest the law gets to defining the purpose of marriage, then it’s safe to say that gays qualify. Polygamous situations and incestuous situations are necessarily different because, with polygamy, it’s not obvious how a “pull the plug” decision would be made by a group or how inheritance would be dealt. In the incestuous situation, it’s repetitive in that it grants the same rights twice.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?
I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?
Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?[/quote]
There is no Constitutionally-defined purpose to marriage aside from purely contractual purposes. In other words, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution WHY people should get married or why the institution exists.[/quote]
Huh. Does it say anything about that anywhere else in the law?
Because this entire thread is completely useless, from both sides of the argument, if there is no actual definition of what the purpose of marriage is. Also, I don’t understand how there can be a contract without a purpose to the contract. Is there any other situations where a contract exists without a purpose?[/quote]
It’s not within the purview of the Court to determine the purpose of a contract, only to determine whether any alleged Constitutional violation within that contract (the only reason this would ever find its way in front of the Court in the first place) has merit.[/quote]
Then there is no reason according to law that gays can’t enter into a marriage contract with each other.