Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California

Your example of Nero's marriage was a legal example, not a religious one...so, I guess I should ask you, which part are you not understanding? An emperor of Rome getting married to another man means that the union was de facto legal. Has nothing to do with religion.

I know that you think your marriage is some magical thing with supernatural qualities or whatever but I assure you that it is nothing more than a union in the form of a contractual agreement. That's what we're talking about here, legal contracts...and like I said, you can find many examples throughout history so we can firmly reject your broad claim.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't pose any questions to me.

 

Really? Then what do you call these?

(hint....look for the ? marks)

 

If you were asking me those questions then it is odd that you would quote a post from someone named 'WillReadmore' when posing the questions without any reference to me whatsoever...

(hint...my name isn't WillReadmore)

However, I did pose two questions directly to you which you haven't addressed...so who's technically "dodging" here since "dodging" seems to be a metric that you find important?

 

Dude, your lying. Refer to post #172.

 

Okay? Post #172 is where I asked you those two questions I referenced in my previous post. What is it that you think I'm lying about exactly?

 

No one claimed otherwise. I'll wait here while you busy yourself with that strawman for a couple days.

 

ACTUALLY, it was neither. What part of

"a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law",
did you not undersatand?

 

What part about a reigning Roman emperor getting married being de facto legal do you not understand?

Let me help you out here by quoting the part of your source that you decided to cut off: "...no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)"

The source that you, yourself, quoted specifically excludes the Nero example that you, yourself, supplied. Sorry bub, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper.

 

Sorry, you are confused. I am the one who excludes them all.

 

So why do opponents of same-sex marriage keep bringing up the fact that only a man and a woman can create a child?

 

Because only a heterosexual coupling creates children in need of someone to provide and care for them. A father of a sexually active 18 yr old daughter doesn't hope she picks just one man to be marry and be sexually active with, because he wants her to procreate. He instead hopes so because he is concerned she is going to procreate, whether she is married or not. If it is instead it his sexually active 18 yr old gay son, none of this is a concern.

 

That may be the irrational position that you maintain but that doesn't negate the fact that you, yourself, provided an example that contradicted your claim. Logic dictates that we should therefore disregard your claim and accept the truth of the matter instead.

You shouldn't worry too much about it though, since while I've seen people insist that legalized gay marriage destroys and/or dilutes their own marriage, nobody has been able to actually substantiate that claim in the slightest.

 

Well once gay marriage is legalized nationwide, if that father's 18 year old daughter turns out to be a lesbian and somehow gets knocked up, he won't have to worry about her raising a child either by herself or married to a man that she doesn't love. Instead she can raise her child in a loving two-parent home in a manner that suits her. Note that I said, "suits her," because that is one of the primary concerns...what suits you and people who think like you is of no concern at all. It is her life after all, not yours. People tend to forget simple things like that...or they just don't care due to an arrogant and misguided sense of superiority.

In short and IMHO, the world would be a much better place if incessant, busy-bodies would worry about their own lives more and other people's less.

 

AND THEN I pointed out I was referring to legal marriages recognized by the law, and two days later and you still cant let go of the irrelevancy.

 

Well, she can if she gets custody of the child from the biological father, and usually 18 years of child support paid by the father. With her lesbian spouse with no legal relationship to the child or obligations.

 

AND THEN I pointed out that a Roman Emperor deciding to get married to a dude made it a legal act. Jesus Christ, I don't know how to make you understand. Nero was the guy in charge, the shot caller, the EMPEROR. If he married a dude then that was legal by default. Your own source even pointed it out as an "exception". Are you questioning your own source? If so, why in the hell did you use it to begin with?

At this point, I honestly don't know if you are too dense to comprehend or if you are just too embarrassed to admit that you utterly destroyed your own damn argument.

 

"...if she gets custody of the child from the biological father..." What country do you live in? Here, in this country, the mother has custody by default. She doesn't have to "get" anything.

I don't know what you were trying to say with your final statement. It wasn't a complete sentence. Maybe you could elaborate as to what you mean and the relevance of that last line?

 

So what the father thinks is your primary concern here? If the daughter or son is able to conceive a child thru IVS or adopt a child lacking two biological parents, should we prevent them from forming a family to care for that child simply because they have the same reproductive organs?

 

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law.

 

While heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no tendency whatsoever to lead to IVS or adoption. ANY two consenting adults could obtain a child through IVS or adoption. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such preferential treatment. .

 

I though we agreed that marriage had little to do with promoting procreation?

If any two consenting adults can obtain a child through IVF or adoption, then don't those same children deserve the benefits of two married parents? What is "preferential" about that?

 

So you still don't understand. Allow me to provide you with the ENTIRE wikipedia quote that you put so much faith in. I'll even bold and oversize parts of the text as you seem to prefer.

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).
​

"Apart from". Did you miss that part? "...no legal standing in Roman law (apart...from...)."

Is this sinking in? According to your source, same-sex marriage had no standing in Roman law, except for the instances where it DID.

Nero's marriage was legal simply due to the fact that Nero, the emperor (aka ruler) of Rome, said so. That's how things work when you're friggin' Caesar.

If it makes you feel any better we could say that your claim is true, apart from the fact that it contains untruths.

What do you think? Would that be a fair compromise?

 

I understand just fine. I was referring to legal marriage, under the laws. Not marriage under the arbitrary will of the emperor.

 

Correct. Marriage inhibits procreation outside of marriage.

Marriage extended to any two consenting adults, currently excluded by law, who desire marriage, would be marriage without any preferences. Marriage extended only to gay couples is preferential treatment for the gays. There are more children being raised by two closely related adults than there are children raised by homosexual couples. If your concern was the children you would allow any to consenting adults to marry. Your goal is more respect and dignity for gays in extending marriage to only gay couples.

 

Only for those who get married. It certainly doesn't prohibit unmarried people from procreating.

Agreed. The question here is what substantial interest does the state have in excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Who is suggesting that only gay couples should be allow to marry? Certainly not me or anyone I've heard of.