Marriage isn't a human right

Translation: I can't accept that gay people should be allowed to marry... so I'll stuff my head with virtually irrelevant old laws and outdated legal rulings that tell me things should still be as they were THEN.

 

Nonsense, not all states had laws against interracial marriage. Most countries never had any such laws. Interracial marriages have existed throughout human civilization. Laws against interracial marriage were the exception, not the rule. And they were held unconstitutional because race has no ration relation to the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce, because interracial couples procreate just like same race couples. And because purifying the white race isn't a legitimate governmental interest

Its biology, not religion. Religion simply exists in a world where only men and women are capable of procreating. Ancient Rome celebrated homosexual behavior but marriage was still limited to men and women. From BC Roman law

conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen),... "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")...

 

Actually that's current law and a grasp on reality you long ago lost.

 

I'm not a professional debater, but I know BS when I see it.

 

There are standards. Most people know what is an "elephant." If you say the word "elephant" most would visualize a bulbous animal with large "cauliflower" ears with a small tail and large trunk. The "gay marriage" movement is saying that people MUST accept that an "elephant" "can" have small round ears. a LARG tail, and the "noise" or a pig, or that an "elephant" "CAN" have a "snout." Of course such an animal would not be an "elephant..."

 

Still, largely irrelevant in the bulk of these discussions (as you've been told many times).

And I do know that "marriage" is considered to be enough of a fundamental right, that the kinds of arguments you continue to level at others SEEKING that right... are completely ineffectual (as evidenced by marriage laws being 'corrected', State by State).

 

People who have not been living under a ROCK for the last 5 years, know and realize that "marriage" in the legal sense, in America... now includes homosexual couples.

If they are so ignorant or unaccepting of that reality, then that is their problem.

 

This is possibly the most illogical analogy I have read to date.

By your reasoning what the Gay Rights movement is saying is that a Person MUST have two arms and two legs to be called a person....and a person must have all ten toes to be labeled a person and a person who has only one ear when born due to a genetic abnormality is not really a person nor should they be called one.

So that makes it easier I guess to abort a genetically altered fetus as it is not really a PERSON...RIGHT?

Totally ILLOGICAL.

AboveAlpha

 

Again, we are not talking about "marriage." We are talking about "gay marriage" or a redefinition of the term. We are now saying "elephants" can now have small round ears because some political group says they "can." pick a new term and define it as you will, but quit trying to FORCE others to redefine a pillar of society simply because you feel left out.

 

Marriage INCLUDES "gay marriage" (especially in the legal sense).

It's as simple as that.

 

a human being has a genetic DNA which defines them as being "human." The word "marriage" has a definition not unlike DNA. "Gay marriage" is not "marriage..."

 

LOL!! I think you simply enjoy trying to lead people somewhere.

What you're saying makes little to no sense.

Gotta' put you on 'ignore', for a bit.

Bye.

 

Since your definition of Marriage is simply based upon various religious definitions of what Marriage is....and since there exists a separation of Church and State....such a religious definition of marriage is meaningless as well has absolutely no effect upon states allowing Gay Marriages.

It is sort of like those who oppose Abortion. They can argue and complain all they want but the facts are Abortion is legal in the U.S. and will ever remain so.

Your argument is akin to complaining about Daylight Savings Time coming into effect.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

And as I stated....this definition is religious in it's nature therefor meaningless.

AboveAlpha

 

Traditionally it has not which is my point. As I post on this board nearly daily, the courts change society in violation of the Constitution which makes such rulings illegal. Marriage is a state sectioned issue and a privilege. The federal government has nothing to do with it.

The "gay marriage" movement simply wants EXTRA and SPECIAL PRIVLIDGES for homosexuals, plain and simple.

 

Obamacare violates Natural Law in many ways as it violates Human Nature and therefore will NEVER succeeded no matter what.


So I asked, "Are you saying that each person having health care instead of limted to the influential and rich violates Natiral Law somehow?"

How does Obama Care violate Natural Law? How is limited health care, (which is why we have Obama Care),.........violate Natual Law? Natural Law would dictate that all people would have health care,................and not just a few.

 

Hmm, I don't see these extra special privileges being extended. What did they get that you didn't get?

What is swamp music? I'll check youtube

 

The "extra special privilege" of redefining the word "marriage."

 

There is no "mandate" to Natural Law as that violates the idea of Individual Liberty. Sorry you lose the argument.

 

Kentucky judge said it well.

The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:
"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:
"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:
"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

Kentucky statutes do not specifically prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex1 nor do they authorize the issuance of a marriage license to such persons.

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.

A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity....

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.

 

and some states allow same sex marriage... it's already happened, the definition is what it is... you can't change that

 

As I said previously....those against Gay Marriage can argue and complain all they want but many states will have legalized Gay Marriage within the year and already several states have already legalized Gay Marriage such as Massachusetts has had Legal Gay Marriage for several years now and contrary to the beliefs of many Religious Extremists....the sky has not fallen and really...no one in Mass. pays much attention or cares about who get's married.

It is just a matter of time before every U.S. State Legalizes Gay Marriage....this is inevitable.

AboveAlpha

 

I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise. Let go of the strawmen if you can.

 

I would like to think some states have enough common sense to legalize marriage for two consenting adults, marriage equality, instead of using discriminatory treatment to help win gays more respect and dignity.

 

Not quite following you Dixon.

AboveAlpha

 

so you agree with the current definition then...?