I didnt say that, but would agree that two is better than 1. And it would be no better in the case of a homosexual couple, than it would be in the case of a couple made up of any two consenting adults, so not sure what you think justifies special treatment for gays. Oooooo k, but what does that have to do with being gay? Divorced mother and widowed grandmother have been the "two supporting and loving parents" for 3 kids down the street from me. Great kids, great family, but they dont munch on each others (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and so arent qualified in your view for this special treatment for gays. Such discrimination with no rational basis has no justification under our constitution. The ideal is biological mothers and fathers providing and caring for the children they have created together in a nuclear family. A gay couple is just one of many other possible combinations of two consenting adults who could join together to raise a child. Absurd to argue that out of all these other possible combinations, that a gay couple must receive the same preference as biological parents receive while these other combinations do not. You people want to forceably excise procreation from the institution of marriage, while with equal force, insisting that sex reamain at its core. Biological parents arent preferred because biological parents are sexual. They are preferred because they are biological. A male lion will fight to the death to protect his biological offspring, while he is just as likely to kill the biological offspring of another male lion.
I never said I agree with the gay thing and it would be fine with me if they all gave up their sinful ways. I was simply asking a question. I am only being a devils advocate of sorts here. To me this issue is just a distraction from the real issues destroying this country.
If we want to recognize legal rights connected to marriage, it should involve a secular institution like civil unions. We could grandfather all current marriages into this.
Marriage is secular. "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage Because of biology, not religion.
All marriages are civil unions, they are granted by the state. In some cases religious leaders are permitted to perform these unions and make them religious unions at the same time, but the fact remains, the marriage certificate is a STATE contract and a civil govt document. Religious ceremonies are ON TOP of civil ones, not instead of. You cannot be married without the proper legal documents. We do NOT have strictly religious marriages in the USA.
This I disagree with. Legally recognized marriages are indeed civil unions, but there is no law preventing people from undergoing the religious rite of holy matrimony without a license. The license only matters if they're seeking legal recognition of such a marriage. Same-sex couples have been getting married in churches for years without legal recognition of their unions.
Thats what I tell gays ranting about their freedom to marry who they want. Even here in conservative central Tx the local church of christ preacher marries same sex couples. But then most then admit they want all the tax breaks, governmental entitlements, hospital policy privilidges, employment benefits AND in the judges view, most importantly, they believe, the respect from society that hasnt been given and the "dignity" they need.
Calling a "union" "holy" doesnt make it "matrimony". They may call them a "marriage" and refer to them as a holy union, they dont refer to it as "holy matrimony" .
Its not a big deal. Until those with a same sex marriage start demanding governmental tax breaks and entitlements extended to legally recognized heterosexual marriages.
Strawman, not what I argued. My statement about same-sex couples marrying was separated from the paragraph explaining that people don't need a license for religious rites, in which I used 'holy matrimony' as an example. Not everything I write is necessarily in a context of applying to same-sex couples. When it is, I tend to be specific about that. Regardless of what it's called, my statement specifically referring to same-sex couples still holds true - they have been marrying in churches without the license that provides government recognition of their unions for years. In other words, you couldn't find anything to actually argue against, so you had to make something up by seizing on one phrase and making mistaken assumptions about my intended meaning instead of relying on what was actually written.
The state being involved in marriage doesn't mean the state is involved with telling you to do anything. It's just there as a safeguard in case anything happens to either spouse. then one, or the other, or the offspring of said union, have certain protections. No one is being "told" to do anything. Maybe the state shouldn't be involved with delivering the mail. Maybe states shouldn't build roads and "control" where we can drive and cannot drive. Maybe we should all live in caves and forage for roots and hunt rabbits. Me, I'll take the system as it stands. If you are against tax breaks for one group over another, I would suggest you contact your representative about this. Bro
You will find, that I frequently focus my comments upon that portion of peoples post with which I disagree. Never saw much point in engaging in telling each other how much they agree with another posters comments. You lefties seem to thrive upon it. And I made no comment upon your "intended meaning" and instead focused upon what was stated. "Matrimony" has a very specific meaning. The same meaning "marriage" had up until 10 years ago. But currently, the word "matrimony" is still limited to a man and a woman. By definition. It takes a man to make a woman a mother. And without a woman a man cant father his own children.
Funny, you didn't in this instance. Instead you disagreed with something that wasn't actually stated. No, you didn't. What specific part of this do you disagree with: Nothing in there whatsoever about same-sex couples undergoing the religious rite of holy matrimony. Repetitive and irrelevant. I don't think anyone here is disputing the definition of "holy matrimony". Therefore, I stand by my accusation that your post was a strawman. Also irrelevant. We're talking about marriage, not procreation.
The ability to quote it doesn't mean you understood it properly, as I've already illustrated. Strawman. This was never stated.
Nothing to understand. You used the term "holy matrimony" to refer to a church sanctioned, same sex marriage. They dont use that term for same sex marriages.
I did not. Apparently I have to explain it to you yet again. This is what I said: Again - no reference whatsoever in this paragraph to same-sex couples. This was offered to challenge the notion that marriage is solely an institution of government administered through law. The entire point of this paragraph is that marriage can also be a religious rite, separate from legal recognition. The use of the phrase "holy matrimony" refers to the common rite by which most religious couples are spiritually united in marriage. Nowhere do I give any indication that my intent is to apply it to same-sex couples, and hence my analysis that you made a mistaken assumption regarding my intended meaning. A separate sentence followed in a new paragraph: No mention of "holy matrimony" there in relation to same-sex couples marrying. To recap: Point 1: A license isn't a requirement of religious marriage, only of legal marriage (and I'll remind you that his was in challenge to another poster's questionable statements on the matter). Point 2: Same-sex couples who are religious do marry in churches without licenses. It wasn't even a response to you, but to someone else. What it's called wasn't the point - that would depend on the particular branch of faith in question. So I reiterate: This was never even about the phrase in question, but about you wanting to attack me. Finding nothing in my post with which to disagree, you seized up on a phrase inconsequential to the actual points I was making, and created a strawman to argue against in their place. I'm done with explaining my actual intent to you. If you want to continue pretending that I said something I didn't, then enjoy your fantasy. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it on this kind BS.
Ah, I see, you were only referring to heterosexual couples entering "holy matrimony". My mistake for presuming you had something relevant to the topic of discussion.
I haven't seen much relevance in your posts. . . Do you think, maybe, your posts are most relevant to YOU, but are lagging far behind in acceptance and rational thinking? By the way. . .matrimony is most often associated with "SACRAMENT of MATRIMONY." Which, obviously, is entirely "religious based." So. . .remind me why you're splitting hair again?
Definition of MATRIMONY : the union of man and woman as husband and wife : marriage Origin of MATRIMONY Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron more at mother http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage Has nothing to do with religion. It is biology that dictates only a woman can become a mother and she can only bear the child of a man. Religion simply reflects that reality. Just like our laws reflect that reality.
