[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t ask me why, but I’ll try one more time. There was not meant to be any such thing as U.S. law concerning marriage because what I posted was nearly universally agreed upon privately (that’s where ya don’t have ta be forced see?) as the definition of marriage, family and sex we would have in the United States. [/quote]
First of all, private agreement about the definition of a type of contract ~200 years ago doesn’t mean anything about legality today and that is EXACTLY why we’re having this conversation. Everything that you’ve posted has been great for your own private world, but it’s completely worthless in the real world where there are over 310 different religions and denominations in the US today.
In addition, as I’ve said 3x now, America purposefully, from its inception, separated state and religious law. Therefore, it can only be concluded that our forefathers didn’t want us to assume anything about federal law based on a religion, even in the area of marriage.
In addition, as I’ve said 3x now, America purposefully, from its inception, separated state and religious law. Therefore, it can only be concluded that our forefathers didn’t want us to assume anything about federal law based on a religion, even in the area of marriage.
[/quote]
Completely false. You simply do not know your history.
[/quote]
As I’ve said, prove it. So far, you haven’t offered anything that has to do directly with marriage law today in the US to this thread. You didn’t even answer whether or not you can think of a reason according to law why I can’t marry my own mother if I was to give up my rights as her daughter.
In addition, as I’ve said 3x now, America purposefully, from its inception, separated state and religious law. Therefore, it can only be concluded that our forefathers didn’t want us to assume anything about federal law based on a religion, even in the area of marriage.
[/quote]
Completely false. You simply do not know your history.
[/quote]
As I’ve said, prove it. So far, you haven’t offered anything that has to do directly with marriage law today in the US to this thread. You didn’t even answer whether or not you can think of a reason according to law why I can’t marry my own mother if I was to give up my rights as her daughter.[/quote]
You made the initial assertion. You prove it.
I’ve been over this dozens of time on PWI. YOU are the one who strutted into this thread making unvalidated, revised history claims. You’ve been nursing at the tit of some dumbass university professor who has filled your purty lil noggin full of bullshit.[/quote]
lol. I knew you were going to say that because you don’t have any ground to stand on and you never did on this thread. The fact that you can’t even post up one word about why I can’t marry my own mother according to law is awesome.
I already asked for evidence to the contrary by every member on this thread, and all we got was a snippet from T-Cat from his religion. For someone who should have a whole ton of interesting information to fill this thread with, due to his age and apparent knowledge of the law, you have been shockingly unhelpful.
So run your mouth all you like, but don’t expect me to take anything you say seriously unless you can back it up with a link. My claims in this thread have already been linked/references cited by myself or others. Read back if you don’t remember.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Also, I made THE most pertinent post of the entire thread regarding marriage law in the US. If you missed it that’s your problem; it just means you waddling and stumbling through the thread not giving a FF what anyone else has to say but rather using this thread as another forum to blab about your preconceived notions.[/quote]
My preconceived notions? LOL!
My first comment on this thread was a question because I wasn’t sure. I specifically asked what the purpose of marriage was according to law. I waited until that question was answered to make any further comment on the thread and I based those comments on the answers that you and others gave me.
I was ready to admit, if the definition of the purpose of marriage according to law was something like “To raise children” that only those who raise children should get married, which would exclude many gays in addition to many straight people.
At this point, no one has brought up a reason according to the purpose of marriage indicated by laws regarding it, why gays shouldn’t marry. If they do, I will definitely be willing to concede my points.
Unlike you, I don’t have any agenda in this thread other than determining what’s meant by marriage and whether it’s fair to establish a “sex” requirement to it.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
You didn’t even answer whether or not you can think of a reason according to law why I can’t marry my own mother if I was to give up my rights as her daughter.[/quote]
From “A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution of the United States” by John Bouvier:
MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.
To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually contracted.
etc etc
MARRIAGE, PROMISE OF. A promise of marriage is a contract entered into between a man and woman that they will marry each other.
The whole “unnatural thing” was used for interracial marriage too. It was a stupid argument used to restrict people’s rights then and it is the same thing now.
Just admit it, you’re bigots, I mean, it’s a proud tradition, someone has to stand on the wrong side of history amirite?
‘Marriage’ is no longer ‘marriage’ it’s whatever the gay rights lobby say it is or you’re a ‘bigot’. And they push for more discrimatory laws to stamp out the ‘bigotry.’ You’re the bigot.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:<<< WE DON’T LIVE IN A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY!!! >>>[/quote]We used to. And we rose in truly meteoric fashion into the greatest, most respected, feared and prosperous nation in all of the history of this planet. Now we’re dyin. Since the 60’s
[quote]angry chicken wrote:<<< So your assertions that AMERICANS have to abide by YOUR interpretation of what a “Judeo-Christian society” SHOULD be, has NO bearing on the the rest of us! [/quote][quote]Tiribulus wrote:<<< universally agreed upon privately (that’s where ya don’t have ta be forced see?) >>>[/quote]I have said one thousand times here. The force of civil law CANNOT effectively dictate the morality of sex and family. I said the following a while back to a guy who didn’t think gay marriage would have any appreciable effect on this nation:[quote]It is the latest component in a national suicide that began in earnest in the 1960’s. It HAS AND IS having an appreciable effect. A devastating suicidal one. This country was built on the social/political/economic foundation of very limited public government through privately and voluntarily practiced Judeo-Christian morality.
Oh yes it was. Our founders clearly told us that. “The reason we can give you so few rules boys n girls is because you’re already so well behaved on the whole” to paraphrase in a nutshell. Even the totally hypocritical pagans like Jefferson and Franklin clearly understood this.
The soil out of which new citizens grow is their family or lack thereof. Every single last issue killing this country is a direct consequence of that. The founders assumed that we would continue in the new testament model of one man and one woman for life wherein boundaries that engender self sacrifice, self control, decency, modesty and HONESTY in the act of upholding one’s vows because one’s word actually meant something. All of this was predicated upon the assumption that God designed it that way. That was the soil for new citizens they absolutely counted on for their experiment in self government to succeed and it did.
We skyrocketed into the most prosperous, powerful, feared and respected nation in all of human history over the course of a few generations BECAUSE despite our human foibles we were the most moral because we were the most Christian. Look at the soil our citizens are growing in now. Children of the hippies. Hedonistic, self obsessed, narcissistic, materialistic whores whose mission in life is bringing themselves the most pleasure in the most rapid fashion possible.
ALL the economic woes we are now in ARE, make no mistake, the consequence of the sexually moral degeneration of this nation’s citizenry resulting in the destruction of the foundational social unit upon which she was built and out of which her members are spawned. Even Stalin understood this. He told the world that the United Sates would never be defeated as long as she maintained her spirituality and hence MORality.
Wanna know what’s rotting this nation dead from the inside out like an oozing flesh eating virus? Go look in your Sex and the Male Animal forum. We will destroy OURSELVES to the snickering glee of our many enemies without a shot being fired, all in the name of getting laid. Gay marriage is just the latest chapter. [/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote: <<<First of all, private agreement about the definition of a type of contract ~200 years ago doesn’t mean anything about legality today and that is EXACTLY why we’re having this conversation. Everything that you’ve posted has been great for your own private world, but it’s completely worthless in the real world where there are over 310 different religions and denominations in the US today.
In addition, as I’ve said 3x now, America purposefully, from its inception, separated state and religious law. Therefore, it can only be concluded that our forefathers didn’t want us to assume anything about federal law based on a religion, even in the area of marriage. [/quote]I am not capable of communicating with you. Are you sure you aren’t Pat’s sister? This is not the same country anymore. DO YOU HEAR ME?!?!?! That great nation is gone. The flag is the same, but the character that made her great is all but DEAD. Your generation will see to the last nail in the coffin lid. You’re doing it now. UNLESS we forsake this abominable path of moral degeneration and return to the God whose providence Jefferson declared this young nation to be firmly reliant upon. Mark my words sweetheart. They will haunt you one day.
I don’t disagree that for MANY reasons, the Nation is headed in the wrong direction.
The thing that confuses me is when exactly this almost mythical period was when our Nation exhibited, (both in words AND action), such moral and ethical strength and purity.
In other words; when did this almost “Christian Camelot” exist that we’ve fallen so far from?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Marriage’ is no longer ‘marriage’ it’s whatever the gay rights lobby say it is or you’re a ‘bigot’. And they push for more discrimatory laws to stamp out the ‘bigotry.’ You’re the bigot.[/quote]
Cry about it, it’s still going to happen. Right now is the deep south more people 18-25 are pro-gay marriage than people 60+ in New England where gay marriage is legal. It’s a cultural trend, in 20 years no one is going to give a shit about this just like no one thinks twice about interracial marriage anymore.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if even the conservative supreme court struck down bars to gay marriage though as they don’t have a good leg to stand on.
As to the pedophilia and bestiality examples, aside from the fact that I find the comparison offensive, it’s also retarded:
Pedophilia is illegal on the grounds that children are not of the age of majority and thus cannot make informed consent to sexual acts. Pedophilia, involving or not involving marriage is always at the very least statutory rape (in the case of older post-pubescent girls below the age of majority) and with actual children fall under special child rape statutes. The legal foundation for sexual assault laws in the US is that having sex with anyone who cannot make informed consent is a violation of their civil rights as well as an attack on their person (ie. assualt).
Please explain to me how two consenting gay adults agreeing to enter into a marriage contract are violating each other’s civil rights or assaulting one another?
Bestiality is a different story. I’m really sad I’ve had to point this out so many times, but it is true, most animals large enough to have sex with could certainly show you if they were pissed off about it. Then you have to explain why your pants are around your ankles and you have a concussion from your horse kicking you. On a serious note though, human - animal marriage is not recognized by the law on the grounds that animals are not recognized as actors under the law, they have owners, they cannot enter into contracts, etc. It seems common sense that extending given contract rights to consenting human adults does not some how magically make animals able to enter into similar contracts but I guess that just goes right over some people’s heads.