JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
And the RIGHT is trying to get the government to BAN gay marriage by redefining it to fit their narrow vision. THAT is government interferrence.
GOP Vote Declines Less Than NYT
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
And the RIGHT is trying to get the government to BAN gay marriage by redefining it to fit their narrow vision. THAT is government interferrence.
ford nut
Local nut case
What if you don't want to get married in a church ?
You just want judge to do a quickie at the courthouse before you sober up?
I don't think you can just cut government out of Civil unions.
ford nut
Local nut case
Ah, mr Nut, I want the government to ONLY be involved in civil unions - get the state out of the 'marriage' business entirely...
And, hey, how do you know about those quickies with the judge???
Ops my bad
I misread your post.
Plus I know how obtuse you are...or is that me ? :shifty:
...if you want to remove marriage entirely from the public realm, fine.
But if you genuinely support such a thing, then you can't work to expand the definition in the mean time.
You cant work on both simultaneously.
You're either in favor of the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals, or you think that government should be 100% disinvested from marriage. Can't do both.
But if you genuinely support such a thing, then you can't work to expand the definition in the mean time.
You cant work on both simultaneously.
You're either in favor of the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals, or you think that government should be 100% disinvested from marriage. Can't do both.
What a profoundly stupid statement.
The right isn't doing precisely the opposite. They are preventing activists on the left from redefining it.
Was marriage extended to homosexuals at any other point in our history? Of course not. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It must be redefined in order to include people of the same gender.
In any debate, you have to have a single, set definition. You cannot allow multiple definitions, because then you are not arguing the same thing and a reasonable discussion is impossible.
The definition in question is the traditional definition. That is what society supports and has supported throughout history. It covers the purpose of marriage in regards to children and procreation, which is the purpose of that social institution. Any other definition is inappropriate to this discussion and nothing more then misdirection and obfuscation, which is clearly what you are trying to do.
The fact is, what the activist gay community is doing is working to redefine marriage.
However, the idea of one man/one woman isn't all that marriage has traditionally stood for. One man/many women was certainly condoned in many cultures, and they were all 'married.' Depending on where you look, the one man/many women idea could be older, and perhaps should be the 'traditional' form of marriage. Judeo belief was certainly one/one, but the civilizations that proceeded it had a much different viewpoint of marriage... Much older civilizations. Maybe we have already redefined marriage, certainly not away from man/woman, but from man/women. Redefinition is a fact of life, as societies move, grow, change. The strongest/richest/most powerful man now doesn't need to have the most women, and therefore propagate the strongest/most children, that idea has changed, has been redefined.
We are talking what this country has traditionally understood marriage to mean. Talk of other cultures is irrelevant.
And as for change...
There is a procedure in the constitution for change. It's called an Amendment.
Shag - your quote, not mine - just pointing out that historically it hasn't always been as you stated, and that 'society' isn't always 'western'.
edit add...
Oh, and procreation may have depended on one/many to make sure the strongest, along with a 'lineage' was past down to the next generation...
We are talking about marriage here in American. The only culture that determines the definition is the American culture. That has historically supported the traditional definition of marriage and currently does as well...
It isn't just procreation, it is child rearing as well. Two parents, two sets of grandparents and the support system that all entails.
Ahhh, American history - the only history that counts - got it...
Just wanted clarification...How does the modern concept of divorce/remarriage fit into that equation?
It is irrelevant to the traditional definition of marriage and only a red herring in discussing that definition. Besides, the black community, that upwards of 70% illegitimacy rates, still overwhelmingly supports the traditional definition of gay marriage.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
The right has, and continues to push the Marriage Protection Act, which serves to change the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman. If the law already excluded same-sex couples from marriage, then what was the need for the MPA?
No, you brought it up - not a red herring. If you are using 'rearing of children' and 'traditional procreation' then you need to address 'current' definition of many parents/many grandparents in your marriage equation. We have redefined how marriage is viewed, just with the overwhelming acceptance of divorce. It is no longer - forever and ever, til death do we part. It is 'until something better comes along.' Society has redefined marriage already, here, in the United States, and pretty much everywhere...
Remember I want government out of the 'marriage' business - it is much easier to redefine civil law than some sort of wormy 'religious/societal/fear monger/end of the world as we know it' rule.
Because in some states, the language didn't specifically mention genders. Clearly, this wasn't the result of a tolerance for homosexual marriage, it was simply taken for granted. Aggressive lawyers and activist judges started reinterpreting the law, so states are just plugging the loop holes.
The "acceptance of divorce" says nothing about how society views marriage with regards to children. It only says how easy it is for a divorce and how permenant they view marriage as.
Frank Turek writes:
No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage...
...Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
...Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
Attitudes toward marriage have changed some, but clearly, the vast majority of society still defines marriage as between a man and a woman and it is still tied to the idea of procreation and child rearing. That was the reason marriage was created in the first place. As David Blankenhorn writes:
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children...
...Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Studies have confirmed in areas where gay marriage is allowed and supported, the views of and attitudes toward marriage are different, and marriage is divorced from the idea of pro-creation and child rearing. In fact, Blankenhorn cites the ISSP survey in this article....Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Yes the ‘acceptance of divorce’ says a lot about how society views marriage with regards to children. Society now accepts that one parent households are OK to raise a child – otherwise we wouldn’t have divorce would we? That certainly goes against your argument that you have to have a male/female household to raise children.
And do you really think in this society – where there are almost as many non traditional households (single parent/step parent/grandparents/gay) raising children – that the statement you quoted is still true? How many children view marriage as a security blanket? How many people do you know that don’t have experience with divorce and alternate families? Whether they are the product of a divorced home, they have gone through a divorce, have married someone who is divorced, have children who are divorced and are taking care of grandchildren, there are a lot of people who fit that category.
Marriage should stay within the church, it is a good place for it – the morals and stigmatisms that religions foist onto it are the old standards that you quote above shag.
Society is moving away from the two parent standard with the widespread acceptance of divorce. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with (as you said) how permanent they view marriage as. It is just the opposite. Marriage is now not permanent, it can be altered quickly, painlessly (if desired
), and without societal condemnation.JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Clearly? To whom? So in your world some religious zealot is allowed to interpret the law?
But thanks for confirming my assertion that the RIGHT is trying to get the government to BAN gay marriage by redefining it to fit their narrow vision. THAT is government interferrence. :Beer
Johnny, if you want to engage in any kind of thoughtful debate, please do. But these drive by, thoughtful, attacks designed to simply score a quick hit, followed by your running a way are boring.
The only "redefinition" that is taking place is by the direction of the left.
Let's go back 50 years. If someone told your grandfather that they were getting married, did he need to get clarification before knowing the gender of the other party involved? Of course not. Marriage was between a man and a woman.
In order to make it now include any two people, regardless of gender, means you have to redefine that old institution.
This isn't complicated stuff, I'm sure you can follow it, if you were willing to be honest.
If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, then you can't argue that it should be forced to include homosexuals in the tradition. That simply expands a policy that you don't support. Instead you should invest your energy into getting rid of public recognition of "marriage" regardless of orientation. You can't argue both from that side.
So someone who recognizes that marriage is a specific union between a man and a woman is a "religious zealot?"
I didn't confirm your assertion, I corrected you.
The only "redefinition" that is taking place is by the direction of the left.
Let's go back 50 years. If someone told your grandfather that they were getting married, did he need to get clarification before knowing the gender of the other party involved? Of course not. Marriage was between a man and a woman.
In order to make it now include any two people, regardless of gender, means you have to redefine that old institution.
This isn't complicated stuff, I'm sure you can follow it, if you were willing to be honest.
If you want to argue that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, then you can't argue that it should be forced to include homosexuals in the tradition. That simply expands a policy that you don't support. Instead you should invest your energy into getting rid of public recognition of "marriage" regardless of orientation. You can't argue both from that side.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Or not. You seem to have ZERO qualification for WHO interprets the definition of marriage. I'll take the LAW's literal definition, which is NOT gender-specific, thank you.
Cal, again your dishonest argument is based on some arbitrary, un-written, un-qualified, ambiguous "definition". If the LAW was based on some "societal" definition of marriage being exclusive to man-woman, then why was it NOT originally written that way to begin with? Why do you continue to pretend that homosexuality is some 20th century phenomenon? And WHO gets to define what a "man" and a "woman" is?? Does the right now want to give potential married couples physical tests to assure that the couple contains one penis and one vagina? What about trans-gender and trans-sexual people? What about those people born with both sex organs who had NO CHOICE over their "god-given" sexuality?
There are only 2 rightious choices for the LAW, 1) remain arbitrary on the couple's sexuality, or 2) stay out of the "marriage" buisness altogether. To do anything else is to restrict the individual freedoms afforded by our constitution.
If the wording of the LAW has to be changed to limit "marriage" to be specifically between one male and one female, then that, by definition, IS re-definition.
Another remarkably stupid statement.
Right now, the law in California says the marriage is between a man and a woman. Florida had a similar amendment on it's ballot that also passed also.
Because in the states where that specification was omitted, the fact that marriage is a male/female union was entirely taken for granted. Because the marriage doesn't specifically EXCLUDE sheep or pets, does that mean it's technically included too?
I never implied or stated any such thing.
Why do you pretend that anyone in the past ever even considered that marriage would be redefined to include two people of the same sex? Do you think that, in the states where they forgot to include that detail, they were doing so in an effort to be inclusive??
Do we need to have a talk about the birds and the bees, Johnny? I would have thought you'd learned all about that in the public school.
The right doesn't want to do anything, but keep a traditional institution unchanged. This impression you're trying to make that conservatives are trying to make any kind of fundamental change to the culture is simply untrue and demonstrates the lefts persistent pattern of deception.
What about a Siamese twin bearded lady(ladies) that likes to bite chicken heads off? If they enter a polygamous relationship with the half man, the sword swallower, and a goat, should we call that marriage too.
Again, this is a foolish statement.
Marriage has a recognized and understood definition.
Check the dictionary, first defintion:
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
You don't need to redefine it so that other people can engage in something entirely different, but share the title.
Marriage is a religious or legal union between one man and one woman. There are even some conditions associated with it. These rules, this definition of this specific union is applied fairly and uniformly throughout the population.
You don't have a "right" to get married to a person you love.
You are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, you don't even have to like them.
Civil Union and domestic partnerships do, and they can be made to, replicate all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges that are associated with traditional marriage.
No, if the legal definition of marriage needs to be made more CLEAR in SOME states, then that isn't redefinition.
If the entire culture needs to be retaught what something is, that by definition IS redefining it.
If I asked your father what marriage was 40 years ago, would he have said a "civil union between two people that might be homosexual?"
Of course not. He's say the union between a man and a woman.
If I asked your grandfather that question, he'd give me the same answer. They knew the definition. I know the same definition. You're the one who's trying to CHANGE the definition to include something else.
And ultimately, in Florida and California, you saw this matter determined through the Democratic process. Are you taking issue with that?
If the people of the state overwhelmingly, and repeatedly, say in an election that they don't want to redefine the institution, why are you saying they are wrong.