Absurd! Homosexuals can get married now. So how do they suffer by not having government sanctioned marriage?!
You're not making any sense. I supported my opinion by linking to sites that offer facts, facts which you seem desperate to ignore. I guess all that reading material gives you a headache? lol Better just ignore it than try to refute it. I'm afraid you entirely missed the point I was making. Is anyone compelled to engage in homosexual behavior, yes or no? If no you can't honestly compare homosexuality to race, which is something we are born with and can't change. So you are frightened by the question and can't answer it. Easy dismissal comes naturally to those with a closed mind.
The limousine liberals are eager to force PC lies down children's throats, less concerned with the abysmal employment rate. Shocking: How the Mass. 'transgender rights' law is changing the schools Obama Appoints Homosexual Propagandist To Education Why do some want to use taxpayer funds to celebrate the dangerous gay lifestyle? CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men quote: The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44times that of other men and more than 40times that of women. The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women. quote: While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations quote: Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities Gay, bisexual men still at high risk for HIV-study quote: Men who have sex with men are 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population
Im an atheist and a contract is a contract, the fact that a couple is gay or not couldnt be more irrelevant.
Nooooo it would be unequal to the treatment other people who are wrongly being discriminated against.
Why would I claim that? It's absurd, ignorant, and has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Really? I don't remember defining marriage, other than to identify the ritual as a contractual obligation. Once we all realize that marriage is a contract, enforced by the government, then we can express the details that identify it as a marriage. Anansi the spider; All the benefits that come with marriage, mostly legally endorsed by the government. Unless you are saying they can marry, and it is irrelevant who they choose to marry as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. In that case it only emphasizes the fact that the "marriage" is a contract, with stipulations required.
Because it's every bit as preposterous as what you DID claim. If your memory fails you, just read post #119. Yes, and you did so for no other purpose than to hollow it out so as to justify applying it to arrangements between perverts which are inimical to the primary legitimate purpose of marriage from a societal perspective, which is to ensure that the average child will grow up in an environment which nurtures his or her love of liberty and justice. And this is wrong anyway, since a couple can be married without any government involvement whatsoever.
Why do I need to go back to another post, when I made the same statement in the post above? How do you figure the government isn't involved? First you must get a government license, then meet all the legal government requirements, and once you are married you must file the license for it to be "legal" and recognized by you guessed it, the government. Then if it doesn't work out the government (a court) will be there to assist with the legal stuff that enforced by the law. Yea no government involvement at all. Marriage isn't only about having children. That is definitely one of the results of a marriage in most marriages but many people marry with no intent of having children or raising a family. Or are you saying marriages that result in no children should not be recognized as valid by the 'government'? My intention is to identify a contract for what it is, a contractual financial obligation made between two consenting adults, to enter and sustain a committed relationship that comes with all the legal protections amenities associated with such a contract. What can I say, these types of agreements usually depend on the two parties having comparable personalities, allowing the attraction as well as the relationship to be more sound and the marriage more likely to last. That's a good thing isn't it? If they happen to be perverts it just makes the bond stronger, does it not?
I didn't say it isn't, I said it doesn't have to be. Nonsense. A man and woman don't need any of that to be married, they only need it to have their marriage recognized by government. Never said it was, obviously. Obviously not. No, your purpose is to induce others to share your confusion about what marriage is. "I apologize for aiding and abetting the enemies of liberty and justice" would be nice. Game over. You lost before you started.
No one other than you, just now has said anything about exclusivity. And it wouldn't matter if only Christianity condemned killing another person while every other religion allowed murder. If congress comes to the conclusion that laws against murder are a good thing for the general welfare of the people, they can enact the Christian prohibition against murder as statutory law. And considering that most all religions, cultures, traditions and historic secular law has limited marriage to a man and a woman, not sure of your point.
Then how else can the contract be legal? So being legal has nothing to do with marriage in your mind? You are all over the road on this aren't you? Then what was all that about a child growing up in an nurtured environment? All over the road again. Do you mind stating your opinion without all the riddles? I know what marriage is. It's a contract that established property rights, according to the law. You my friend are the one which has confused issues. What enemies? How does marriage eliminate liberty and justice, when the contract itself assures liberty and justice? More riddles only you understand? How so? I have friends from high school who are about as perverted as they come (and they have 2 children who are grown, married, and have children of their own), and are still married after 33 years. Are you telling me that all those on line dating services who match you with someone with the same interests have it all wrong?
Doesn't matter, since that is only a requirement for enforceability, which is not a requirement for a valid contract. Already answered this. Not in the least. Any perception to the contrary is a figment of your imagination. Yes, because everything I've said here is stone cold fact, and I have no opinions that are relevant to this conversation. Please, you haven't the foggiest idea. Doesn't matter, because marriage is not a creature of codified law. I never said it does, obviously. You are contending that a lie should be seen as truth.
Obviously you are not reading all the pertinent threads, because there are people who think that marriage is a religious issue exclusively and government should get out of the marriage business all together. OKAY...? Not sure what you are attacking/defending there, but murder has been traditionally shunned by all major civilizations including the ones that existed thousands of years before Christianity. Fine lets talk traditions and what I have been saying all along. Traditionally marriage is about swapping goods. Father has a daughter, horny boy/man wants. They come to an agreement (1 horse, 10 goats, 20 loaves of his mama's wheat bread, and season tickets to the gladiator bowl), the deal is made, and the father transfers his property to the horny boy/man at the wedding, and dad's property had better not be damaged before the ceremony. It's even in the traditional ceremony where the father "gives" his daughter to the groom. Exchange of property complete and now the bride is the "property" of the boy/man. Until recently that is. Today it is a mutual agreement between the two parties involved and if things do not work out, there is a contract dispute (divorce) and the new deal is made to brake or release the original obligations as members of the contractual agreement. IOW property is split and divided according to a ruling by the court. Marriage is a contractual obligation to protect property and rights to property, and the government is the determining factor when their is a breach. The government is a major part of the contractual obligation and what you do not need these days for the contract to be valid or cancelled is the church. Now just using the words I used, not what you think I said or would have liked me to have said or think I said, explain how marriage isn't a contract.
If it cannot be enforced there is no validity. And your answer was wrong. It's a contract but doesn't need validity to be a valid contract, doesn't sound all over the road to you? Maybe I am asking the wrong person? Obviously your opinion has no relevence to reality but I was giving you a chance to straighten that up. That will be a surprise to the woman I've been married too for 35 years. Are you just making this stuff up? Marriage law is based largely on previous case law, and precedents set on previous cases, then arbitrated in courts when a contractual obligation has been breached. It's all about the law. All over the road again. You brought it up. So it isn't over? Where did I lie?
So you don't understand what a contract is. What a surprise. Sure it does; but like every other imbecility in this conversation, it came from you, not me. Yes, you need to talk to your imaginary friend, assuming he is your strawman supplier. I'm not talking about "marriage law", I'm talking about marriage. Yes, it's over, and was before the conversation began. My task is to see if I can get you to realize it. I'm not about to provide a laundry list, but the lie I referred to was your claim that marriage is merely a legal contrivance, in which case it is malleable at will by legislators.
Contract- a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable. Like a marriage for instance. Obviously it is you who doesn't have a clue. and you are right, no surprise. Since this conversation started you have proven this to be the case. It's a contract but it isn't in your world. To the rest of the planet, it is understood that a marriage is a contractual obligation that can be enforced by going to the courts. Not sure what you want me to realize since I have pointed out to you, several times that in deed a marriage by definition is a contract. You just refuse to accept reality, or at least that is the way it appears.
Yes, in any jurisdiction which provides an enforcement mechanism, marriage is an enforceable contract, and absent such a mechanism is indeed unenforceable. What you don't get is that by your own definition, marriage remains a contract in either case; and nobody who fails to apprehend that has a clue about the essence of marriage. BTW, nobody who believes only enforceable contracts are valid can be trusted.
For most folks if a contract cannot be enforced it isn't binding in the first place (therefore not a contract by definition). There are very few people who can be trusted on their word and a handshake. There are some but very few. - - - Updated - - - For most folks if a contract cannot be enforced it isn't binding in the first place (therefore not a contract by definition). There are very few people who can be trusted on their word and a handshake. There are some but very few.
so your answer to this would be yes? or would you say giving black people = rights and treatment as enjoyed by whites would be special treatment if we had legal discrimination against Chinese?
Answer to what??? Not sure what you are trying to say but yes. These arguments for gay marriage would be like in the arguments for interracial marriage, condemning the racial discrimination and the insistance that couples of different races must be allowed to marry, and the solution is to only changing the restrictions against blacks marrying whites, while restrictions against Chinese marrying whites remain in place. A legitimate argument can be made that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. These arguments that only the gays need be permitted to marry to end the discrimination are just silly. Marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexual couples for thousands of years, in order to exclude the homosexuals. It has been so limited to exclude all couples, other than the only type of couple who can procreate, heterosexual couples. You people want to insist that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, while hanging on to the notion that mariage is still about sex. Marriage hasnt been made available to heterosexuals for thousands of years because they have sex but instead because when heterosexual couples have sex, children are frequently the result.
