Who has the right to decide the definition of marriage

Marriage has been part of the human experience since when exactly?

Laws have been made to govern it .

The Romans made laws, the Greeks, tribal councils, and so on adnauseum.

Who has the right to decide who can marry whom.
governments fall, laws vanish into nebulous nothingness, civilizations disappear.

who has the moral authority to actually say that two men or two women cannot love each other in exactly the same way as a man and a woman?


who has the legitimate authority to actually say that two men or two women cannot love each other in exactly the same way as a man and a woman?

It's all so absurd and decisive in spreading personal hatred and personal vindictiveness towards people with a differing sexual preference and love preference.
For Same sex relationships is not all about sexual activity between two people.

Flame wars would be appreciated in this thread in order to actually see the level of absurd morality that is actually alive and well in PF..

but i don;t have the power for those get out of infractions posts…lol

 

The only people who should decide if marriage is right for them is the two people involved REGARDLESS of their orientation.

Now the chances are someone will come along and say something like "well if that is the case why can't a brother marry his sister, or a father his daughter" .. my reply, which will catch me a load of flak is there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

 

Marriage license isnt required to "love" someone and why the hell would government have the need to license and regulate love?

 

Because of the potential of detrimental genetic defects. But certainly there is no justification for excluding closely related couples of the same sex in the states with "gay marriage".
But this push for "gay marriage" has nothing to do with equality and is instead only about winning respect and dignity for gays.

 

There are no potential detrimental genetic defects, unless both parties carry the same genetic defect and even then only if the inbreeding is continued through a number of generations. The percentage odds of the coming together of two recessive genes is only a little higher for related people than it is for non-related people in the first instance, the risk increase with each subsequent incestual relationship.

TBH homosexuals have my utmost respect, they have taken so much crap over so many years and yet they still stand proud of who they are, the bigoted retorts given, by the mainly 'religious' are more fitting to a KKK meeting than a modern civilization.

 

The. You should start a movement to remove government from marriage...rather than arguing that gays should be excluded.

- - - Updated - - -

It about equality under the law.

 

Licensing and regulating of marriage between men and women has nothing to do with "love" and is instead concerned with the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. You should start a movement to include any two consenting adults in marriage instead of arguing that gays must be included, if equality is your concern.

 

Marriages limitation to men and women, as old as human civilization itself, has nothing to do with giving crap to homosexuals. From BC Rome-


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")...

just as it is today-

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

This argument that it was instead intended to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals is absurd.

 

nice appeal to tradition

Same could be said for a number of other things that have only, in relative terms, recently been made illegal .. such as slavery.

In the earliest known records slavery is treated as an established institution. The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), for example, prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave to escape or who sheltered a fugitive. The Bible mentions slavery as an established institution

Source - The Code Of Hammurabi - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp
Slavery In The Bible - http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156

Should we all then return to a tradition far older than marriage and start owning slaves again?

 

I've seen this "wellbeing[sic] of children that only heterosexual couples produce" argument before, it has no merit, never has and never will except in the fantasies of those who berate others.

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

refuted. marriage hasn't been limited to a man and a woman for thousands of years. presumption of paternity has been refuted as an argument. if daddy isn't daddy, he has no responsibility. it's a paternity law, not a marriage law. procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

So by that same theory, YOUR opposition to gay marriage isn't about "procreation", but instead is only about the fact you want no respect and no dignity for gays.

Thanks for the admission, dixon.

 

Dont make up such ignorant claims and attribute them to me. If you can locate your nads, take a shot at my actual assertions.

 

"make up"?!?!?!?....I'm QUOTING what YOU said, dixon.

If support for gay marriage "is instead only about winning respect and dignity for gays."

Then the opposite would be true....opposition to gay marriage "is instead only about not having respect and dignity for gays."

Again, thanks for finally admitting the truth. It's not even about "procreation" for you.

 

We can all see what you quoted and the fool logic you used to get to your assertion of what my position is.

 

They don't ... they just register the contract.

 

????No, they license the contract, regulate the contract, dictate many of the terms AND register the contract. And why the hell would government need to register a contract of love.

 

No we can all see what YOU said...and that if you simply reverse it from "support" to "oppose"....

you accidentially revealed why you oppose gay marriage....and it doesn't have a blessed thing to do with "procreation" or "tradition" or "court cases" or "the Constitution"....

but the fact you don't want to allow gays to have dignity and respect.

You..."outed"...yourself, dixon. With your own words.

 

and as long as you keep painting all people of faith with the same brush, then some will paint all gays based on the lowest common denominator amongst them. It is always amusing to see people raging against stereotypes by perpetuating stereotypes as their defense.

 

Marriage is a contract... it may also be a sacrament, but it is always a contract.. The state is not party to the contract. Family law 101.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage is a contract... it may also be a sacrament, but it is always a contract.. The state is not party to the contract. Family law 101.

 

Where did he do that?

 

Noooo, it is the courts silly arguments of more "respect" and "dignity" for gays that has absolutely nothing to do with my views that discrimination must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. A desire to benefit a particuliar classification of people alone, is not a legitimate governmental interest that could justify such discrimination.

 

Still at it?

Yawn.

The next rounds in this battle are the people voting in states such as Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, ect... So the judicial activitism argument goes out the window!

 

So what part of mainly do you not understand .. here let me help you

All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/all
Mainly - more than anything else: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mainly?q=mainly

So please in future do not try to place words into my mouth and misrepresent what I write.

 

He says as the vote of the people of California is rendered meaningless by judicial activism.