Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[LisaA]

You’re right. From a civil perspective, love has nothing to do with it. But nowadays we recognize that people marry (more often than not) for love, not to further the species. But if two straight people want to have those rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, even if they are not in love, they’re entitled to it. Maybe after gay marriage has become commonplace, gay people will do the same – but for right now, they want to marry out of love.

It’s still deemed worthy of recognition, and no one is deny how special it is to bring new life into the world.

I did. And to sum up the entire argument, it came down to sex and children.

So is sex the reason straight people wish to get married? Why do you think sex is the reason gays want to get married? There are certainly promiscuous gay people out there, but I doubt any of them want to marry their one-night-stand from last night. They want to marry the person they’re in love with.

Marriage is not necessary for biology to take its course. Marriage is a human creation that can and does benefit children (sometimes it also harms them because unfortunately not all marriages work out the way they would in an ideal world!), but it also benefits the two individuals who got married in the first place.

Again with the sex. Is that all you think about? I, nor anyone else in this world, need marriage to have a sex life. Some of us want more than that. Marriage is about more than sex. Stop debasing it. Furthermore, single people raise children, and no one takes their kids away simply because they’re single. Gay couples also raise children – often ones straight people didn’t want.

This is the 21st century, and the earth is overpopulated as it is. Society has every interest in promoting non-procreative relationships. In fact, from an objective perspective, society could benefit from forced sterilization. I’m certainly not advocating that, it has major ethical issues… I’m merely pointing out that society doesn’t need everyone pro-creating right now. And the human race is certainly not in danger of going extinct due to the 5-10% of the population that’s gay.

Monogamy is not unhealthy or destructive. Promiscuity certainly does, but those are generally the ones who have no interest in getting married. You’re generalizing about gay males. And again, society is not exactly hurting for new citizens at the moment, and the small number of gay people in the world are not going to make the human race go extinct.

You’re right, neither do heterosexuals. But “the vast majority” is not quite the same as “all of the benefits”, and it’s incredibly expensive to get that “vast majority” of benefits (with no guarantee of keeping all of them, particularly upon someone’s death).

What does that have to do with marriage?

I addressed the objections I read in this thread. Like I said, it came down to sex and kids. If I missed something, feel free to add it to the list.

I have neither the time nor the interest to respond point by point. You seem to want civil marriage to recognize “love” as you define it. Civil marriage has nothing to do with “love.” It is a set of rights and responsibilities resulting from a contract between two persons, the purpose of which is to promote an overall societal good.

Again

Heterosexual marriage is unique in human relationships and it not only provides future citizens through the birth and raising of children but it’s the structure that most contributes to the stability and prosperity of society.

No other structure, not single motherhood nor homosexual relationships do the same.

Thus civil society has a vested interest in promoting behavior that best assists the continuation, prosperity and stability of society.

Homosexuality is a disordered, unnatural and unhealthy behavior that does not have the capacity to provide future citizens.

Why should society promote a non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable form of human relationship?

You are looking at it from a bass-ackwards perspective…why people want to get married. Again this is irrelevant to society, to the secular state. The state is only concerned with its perpetuation, its stability and its prosperity. The state does not care if you “love” the person with whom you are having sexual relations. Neither do I.

Lisa

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I know of someone who loves their house, why can’t they marry? why is that not part of ‘marriage equality’?

Because a house can’t say, “I do.” It can’t accept a marriage proposal. It doesn’t have feelings, a brain, or the ability to speak. And perhaps worst of all, it can’t put on a pretty dress.

 

[Monkey1976]

Because a house can’t say, “I do.” It can’t accept a marriage proposal. It doesn’t have feelings, a brain, or the ability to speak. And perhaps worst of all, it can’t put on a pretty dress.

Can you show me where in the laws it is stated that any of those are required for marriage? If it’s an issue of consent, then why can a man not marry a corporation? Corporations can consent, enter into contracts, have rights of free speech… Under the law, they are no different than any other person.

 

[josh987654321]

Because a house can’t say, “I do.” It can’t accept a marriage proposal. It doesn’t have feelings, a brain, or the ability to speak. And perhaps worst of all, it can’t put on a pretty dress.

Why would it need to? A house is your own personal property and thus it would be absurd to require consent, not simply because it can’t give consent, but because you don’t need consent to do as you wish with your own personal property provided it doesn’t harm anyone.

I don’t understand your opposition, No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if he marries his house. How do you justify discriminating against him? what happened to marriage equality?

Can you show me where in the laws it is stated that any of those are required for marriage? If it’s an issue of consent, then why can a man not marry a corporation? Corporations can consent, enter into contracts, have rights of free speech… Under the law, they are no different than any other person.

lol

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[gnosisofthomas]

What gave you that idea?

The fact that, she implied same-sex marriage has no societal benefit. Okay, she watered it down to gay sex, but the issue in this thread is actually marriage, *not *sex.

Last I checked every person was treated equally under the law and homosexuals are people.

They are people, but in 33 states they are not equal under the law.

So why on earth would anyone be againt polygamy, incest or basically any group of people who don’t share any kind of intimacy to be recognised as married simply because they wish to be recognised as ‘family’? and why are there benefits associated with that?

I’ll give you polygamy. Why *would *anyone be against it? If a group of people wish to be polygamous together, and they’re all consenting, what’s the problem? As for incest, you’re kind of getting back to sex again, and there all kinds of biological reasons that incest is a problem (particularly for straight people in an incestuous relationship). As for marriage between blood relations, what would be the point? They’re already recognized as family, and that status is already protected under the law.

Why can’t 3 or more brothers marry?

Even if plural marriage were legal, again, what would be the point? They’re already family.

Okay, “sexual intimacy/practices are irrelevant to marriage” now what? you have erased all of the lines (accept for ‘love’ in which all of my scenarios above qualify 100%), now I believe you have no rational argument to put any limits on marriage at all.

I didn’t say sexual intimacy was irrelevant to marriage. It certainly plays a role in most people’s married lives. But two people who choose not to have sex with each other can still get legally married, so all this obsession with sex is irrelevant to the issue of the legality of a marriage.

Is the definition of marriage completely arbitrary? and if marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.

The definition of marriage is not completely arbitrary, but it has evolved over time. A white person can marry a black person nowadays; a woman is no longer the property of her husband, and she can own property all on her own; and since 1993, we have marital rape laws in all 50 states. These are just a few examples of how we’ve “redefined” marriage throughout the years, and it certainly wasn’t arbitrary.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I have neither the time nor the interest to respond point by point. You seem to want civil marriage to recognize “love” as you define it.

Love is love. I’m sure you’ve read St. Paul’s beautiful definition of love, but I’m curious… How would you define it? Straight people having sex and making babies?

Civil marriage has nothing to do with “love.” It is a set of rights and responsibilities resulting from a contract between two persons, the purpose of which is to promote an overall societal good.

Yes, and generally in most cases, that contract is made because of love. Sometimes it’s for convenience, sometimes it’s to get a green card, sometimes it’s because someone got knocked up. But more often than not, it’s because of love.

Heterosexual marriage is unique in human relationships and it not only provides future citizens through the birth and raising of children but it’s the structure that most contributes to the stability and prosperity of society.

That does make it unique, but it doesn’t mean that people who can’t procreate can’t get married.

No other structure, not single motherhood nor homosexual relationships do the same.

I’d beg to differ. And there are no laws against single motherhood, yet it exists.

Thus civil society has a vested interest in promoting behavior that best assists the continuation, prosperity and stability of society.

A prosperous and stable society is a happy society. Gay couples can contribute to the prosperity and stability of society just as much as straight couples.

Homosexuality is a disordered, unnatural and unhealthy behavior…

Not it isn’t.

…that does not have the capacity to provide future citizens.

It may not produce future citizens, but (1) Gay couples can still raise children and turn them into responsible and successful citizens; and (2) Who the heck cares if someone reproduces or not??

Why should society promote a non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable form of human relationship?

Aside from procreation, which I admit straight people are pretty good at, society allows heterosexuals to form unhealthy and statistically unstable relationships all the time.

You are looking at it from a bass-ackwards perspective…why people want to get married. Again this is irrelevant to society, to the secular state. The state is only concerned with its perpetuation, its stability and its prosperity. The state does not care if you “love” the person with whom you are having sexual relations. Neither do I.

The state is also (or at least pretends to be) concerned with the well-being of its citizens. And this is not Sparta – our society recognizes the value of each individual, as well as the entire population as a whole. This recognition is spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Only looking at as mere perpetuation of a nation-state is rather fascist thinking.

 

[josh987654321]

The fact that, she implied same-sex marriage has no societal benefit. Okay, she watered it down to gay sex, but the issue in this thread is actually marriage, *not *sex.

I agree, that’s why I think you are discriminating by not allowing someone to marry their house.

I’ll give you polygamy. Why *would *anyone be against it? If a group of people wish to be polygamous together, and they’re all consenting, what’s the problem? As for incest, you’re kind of getting back to sex again, and there all kinds of biological reasons that incest is a problem (particularly for straight people in an incestuous relationship). As for marriage between blood relations, what would be the point? They’re already recognized as family, and that status is already protected under the law.

Okay, so we can agree that polygamy should be recognised under marriage equality, now when it comes to incest, I’m not getting back to sex at all, because as you say it’s not about sex, so whether you think it pointless or not, why are you not also including incest under marriage equality too? and while your at it, how come someone isn’t allowed to marry their house, why isn’t that under marriage equality also?

Even if plural marriage were legal, again, what would be the point? They’re already family.

Why does it matter if you don’t see the point to it, others do, why would you deny them the right to marriage?

I didn’t say sexual intimacy was irrelevant to marriage. It certainly plays a role in most people’s married lives. But two people who choose not to have sex with each other can still get legally married, so all this obsession with sex is irrelevant to the issue of the legality of a marriage.

Yea true, so why can’t someone marry their house? how do you justify discriminating against them?

The definition of marriage is not completely arbitrary, but it has evolved over time. A white person can marry a black person nowadays; a woman is no longer the property of her husband, and she can own property all on her own; and since 1993, we have marital rape laws in all 50 states. These are just a few examples of how we’ve “redefined” marriage throughout the years, and it certainly wasn’t arbitrary.

I think you will find gnosisofthomas, that at the construct of marriage althroughout history has been that simple reality that men and women are designed for one another, sure there have been variations, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference, a total difference would be someone marrying their house or like we are discussing now, same sex marriage. Only in very recent times has the nonsense notion of same sex marriage ever been given any sort of legitimate weight.

The construct of marriage is based on that most simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another.

And if you reject design, maybe this will help -

http://s13.postimg.org/l59sa74x3/incompatible2.jpg

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Can you show me where in the laws it is stated that any of those are required for marriage? If it’s an issue of consent, then why can a man not marry a corporation? Corporations can consent, enter into contracts, have rights of free speech… Under the law, they are no different than any other person.

Well at least in my state, taking vows and saying “I do” are requirements. Of course the minimal requirement is to sign the marriage certificate, which houses are incapable of doing.

I would actually love to see someone try to marry a corporation, since in this country corporations are considered people. Of course it would be plural marriage, but it would certainly show how ridiculous it is to treat a corporation as a person.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Why would it need to? A house is your own personal property and thus it would be absurd to require consent, not simply because it can’t give consent, but because you don’t need consent to do as you wish with your own personal property provided it doesn’t harm anyone.

I don’t understand your opposition, No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if he marries his house. How do you justify discriminating against him? what happened to marriage equality?

Considering a spouse as property is illegal nowadays. Personally, I have no problem with someone marrying a house – heck, maybe I’ll marry a unicorn and fight for the rights of fantastical creatures!

 

[josh987654321]

Well at least in my state, taking vows and saying “I do” are requirements. Of course the minimal requirement is to sign the marriage certificate, which houses are incapable of doing.

Why would they need the other party (house) to sign the marriage certificate? a house is your own personal property, when I buy a house they don’t require me to get the house’s signature.

I would actually love to see someone try to marry a corporation, since in this country corporations are considered people. Of course it would be plural marriage, but it would certainly show how ridiculous it is to treat a corporation as a person.

Okay, so you don’t see any problem with allowing people and corporations to marry?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Considering a spouse as property is illegal nowadays.

That’s because as people currently understand spouse, it is a person, in this case it would be a house and thus there is no need to consider it illegal when it refers to a house.

Personally, I have no problem with someone marrying a house – heck, maybe I’ll marry a unicorn and fight for the rights of fantastical creatures!

I thought so.

Like I said, in order for same sex marriage advocates to get what they want, they have to erase all of the lines and when marriage can become anything, pretty soon it becomes nothing.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I agree, that’s why I think you are discriminating by not allowing someone to marry their house.

Okay, so we can agree that polygamy should be recognised under marriage equality, now when it comes to incest, I’m not getting back to sex at all, because as you say it’s not about sex, so whether you think it pointless or not, why are you not also including incest under marriage equality too? and while your at it, how come someone isn’t allowed to marry their house, why isn’t that under marriage equality also?

Why does it matter if you don’t see the point to it, others do, why would you deny them the right to marriage?

Yea true, so why can’t someone marry their house? how do you justify discriminating against them?

I think you will find gnosisofthomas, that at the construct of marriage althroughout history has been that simple reality that men and women are designed for one another, sure there have been variations, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference, a total difference would be someone marrying their house or like we are discussing now, same sex marriage. Only in very recent times has the nonsense notion of same sex marriage ever been given any sort of legitimate weight.

The construct of marriage is based on that most simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another.

We’ve already covered the incest issue. And incidentally, incest includes sex in its very definition, so were in fact getting back to sex.

Also, I’m beginning to think you’re in love with your house. Perhaps you should seek therapy to find out why you’re in love with a building that’s incapable of loving you back. Did you not get enough love in your childhood?

Anyway, it’s been fun, but it’s after midnight and I need to get to bed. If new questions pop up in the morning, I’ll try to respond, but rehashing the same old things over and over is a waste of time.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Why would they need the other party (house) to sign the marriage certificate? a house is your own personal property, when I buy a house they don’t require me to get the house’s signature.

Okay, so you don’t see any problem with allowing people and corporations to marry

Get back to me when you buy a wife, or find that special corporation that give you butterflies in your tummy. Then we’ll talk.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Like I said, in order for same sex marriage advocates to get what they want, they have to erase all of the lines and when marriage can become anything, pretty soon it becomes nothing.

Yeah, just like when they erase the segregation lines and allowed interracial marriage. Society totally collapsed, and white couple’s marriages suddenly became nothing.

 

[josh987654321]

We’ve already covered the incest issue. And incidentally, incest includes sex in its very definition, so were in fact getting back to sex.

Ahh, my mistake, replace it with brothers/sisters.

Also, I’m beginning to think you’re in love with your house. Perhaps you should seek therapy to find out why you’re in love with a building that’s incapable of loving you back. Did you not get enough love in your childhood?

Even if I did, it doesn’t harm you and no one would be forcing you to marry a house, so what right would you have to discriminate against anyone who does want to marry their house?

Anyway, it’s been fun, but it’s after midnight and I need to get to bed. If new questions pop up in the morning, I’ll try to respond, but rehashing the same old things over and over is a waste of time.

lol

Get back to me when you buy a wife, or find that special corporation that give you butterflies in your tummy. Then we’ll talk.

Nobody can own a person, hence why you would need consent, but when it comes to a house, there is no consent required.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Get back to me when you buy a wife, or find that special corporation that give you butterflies in your tummy. Then we’ll talk.

I wasn’t talking about a person, I was talking about a house.

And when I find that special corporation that gives me butterflies in my tummy i’ll let you know, I hope you will be ready to enshrine it into law.

Yeah, just like when they erase the segregation lines and allowed interracial marriage. Society totally collapsed, and white couple’s marriages suddenly became nothing.

Like I said, the basic construct of marriage is the simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another, thus why disallowing it on the basis of skin colour is unjust discrimination in regards to marriage, because I have identified the logical basis of marriage I can call it unjust discrimination without opening the flood gates so to speak.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Does MARRIAGE allow a man and a house (Some nut case) or not (Me)

You are at liberty to set up you own house-loving religion where members in good standing may marry a house. All sorts of strange rules can be part of a religion: “You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday”.

Civil marriages require consent from both parties, and in law a house cannot give consent. The marriage to a house would be valid in the religion, but not in civil law. Somewhat like a Fundamentalist Mormon’s marriages to his second and subsequent wives.

So the question is, is the definition of marriage completely arbitrary?

Your use of the singular “definition” is incorrect. There are many different definitions of marriage in different legal and religious jurisdictions. Some states allow marriage between first cousins, others do not. States recognise divorce, the Catholic Church does not. Saudi Arabia allows up to four wives, Canada only allows one.

There is no such thing as “the definition”, there are many differing definitions. Each definition traces back to some authority, usually a legal or religious authority. Different authorities use different definitions. The MCC’s definition of marriage differs from that of the Catholic Church which differs from the state of Texas’ definition.

Same-sex marriage is just one more among the cloud of different definitions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Because a house can’t say, “I do.” It can’t accept a marriage proposal. It doesn’t have feelings, a brain, or the ability to speak. And perhaps worst of all, it can’t put on a pretty dress.

Ermm…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/images/2005/12/15/xmas_lights_huntington_01_400x270.jpg



rossum

 

[josh987654321]

You are at liberty to set up you own house-loving religion where members in good standing may marry a house. All sorts of strange rules can be part of a religion: “You shall not eat butter on a Wednesday”.

Civil marriages require consent from both parties, and in law a house cannot give consent.

But like I said, why would a house need to consent? A house is your own personal property and thus it would be absurd to require consent, not simply because it can’t give consent, but because you don’t need consent to do as you wish with your own personal property provided it doesn’t harm anyone.

Like I said, I don’t understand your opposition, no one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if he marries his house. How do you justify discriminating against him?

& if consent is still a stumbling block, you always have Monkey1976’s scenario.

Can you show me where in the laws it is stated that any of those are required for marriage? If it’s an issue of consent, then why can a man not marry a corporation? Corporations can consent, enter into contracts, have rights of free speech… Under the law, they are no different than any other person.

The marriage to a house would be valid in the religion, but not in civil law. Somewhat like a Fundamentalist Mormon’s marriages to his second and subsequent wives.

Why arn’t you pro polygamous marriage?

Your use of the singular “definition” is incorrect. There are many different definitions of marriage in different legal and religious jurisdictions. Some states allow marriage between first cousins, others do not. States recognise divorce, the Catholic Church does not. Saudi Arabia allows up to four wives, Canada only allows one.

There is no such thing as “the definition”, there are many differing definitions. Each definition traces back to some authority, usually a legal or religious authority. Different authorities use different definitions. The MCC’s definition of marriage differs from that of the Catholic Church which differs from the state of Texas’ definition.

Same-sex marriage is just one more among the cloud of different definitions.

rossum

And people marrying their personal property or corporations is just one more among the cloud of different definitions? and why would some be valid and others not?

Like I said, the construct of marriage althroughout history has been that simple reality that men and women are designed for one another, there have been variations, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference, a total difference like someone marrying their house or like we are discussing now, same sex marriage. Only in very recent times has the nonsense notion of same sex marriage ever been given any sort of legitimate weight.

The construct of marriage is based on that most simple reality that men and women are clearly designed for one another and your arguments to discount that I believe are no different to posing that someone thinks he can marry his house, therefore marriage between people and property is therefore also legitimate.

I feel like society has gone insane over night and now political authorities are enshrining this insanity into our legal system.

All I can say, is that if you can’t see that men and women are clearly designed for one another “hence the reproductive system” than I don’t know what else to say to you.

I see your signature say’s “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” and I believe that philosophy of yours perfectly reflects your arguments here, but at some point, I hope you will see that such a philosophy is a sham.

Just on a side note, that philosophy “There is no truth, only perception” how do you apply that to things like mathematics? because either way you see it, it has to add up, you can’t have 4 + 4 = 10, unless the number 4 is recognised as 5, in which case you would have to qualify with 5 + 5 = 8, thus making it add up, in which case would strongly indicate to me that objective truth does exist.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers [and Mathematicians] as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy [and Mathematics] - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Ermm…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/images/2005/12/15/xmas_lights_huntington_01_400x270.jpg



rossum

lol