Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[Ridgerunner]

These are not the rights of a child; they are the (limited) rights of the parents. A child has no right to be raised by both a mother and father. A parent has the (limited) right to raise a child if they so choose. If the reverse were true then the law would make joint-custody mandatory rather than optional.

In this state, at least (and I am told in others) it is exactly expressed as the right of the child, not of the parents. And yes, joint custody is presumed appropriate in all cases unless some good reason is shown why it should not be. Now, when it comes to joint physical custody, obviously the child can’t be in two places at the same time, so the year is divided, with as nearly an equal split as possible.

Not good, because divorce is not good. But it’s what’s there.

 

[JimG]

So the answer is canon law. Heterosexual sex is not a requirement for marriage under civil law.

Except until our recent disordered times, a man and a woman was required for civl marriage. If one removes the basics, one accepts anything.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So the answer is canon law. Heterosexual sex is not a requirement for marriage under civil law.

But (at least in this state) failure to have it is grounds for annulment all by itself. Legal annulment’s status is that no marriage has ever taken place. Divorce is different.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Except until our recent disordered times, a man and a woman was required for civl marriage.

In the United States and only because same-sex couples didn’t pursue legal recognition until relatively recently. In the past, they were too busy trying not to get murdered or jailed.

 

[JimG]

The question remains, must the state now equate sodomy with marital relations?
Is that what those polls indicate–that anatomy has nothing to do with marriage?
That sexual complementarity has nothing to do with marriage?

If that is indeed the case, then marriage is dead, and with it, the society.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In the United States and only because same-sex couples didn’t pursue legal recognition until relatively recently. In the past, they were too busy trying not to get murdered or jailed.

Do you really think that even while the anti-sodomy laws were on the books that nobody knew anybody else was homosexual and shot or jailed them without fail? That is utterly contrary to human experience as recounted from time immemorial.

 

[rothko26]

The question remains, must the state now equate sodomy with marital relations?
Is that what those polls indicate–that anatomy has nothing to do with marriage?
That sexual complementarity has nothing to do with marriage?

If that is indeed the case, then marriage is dead, and with it, the society.

Anatomy has nothing to do with marriage. Both homosexual and heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy… that is oral and anal sexual relations without procreative intention. We will fail by only highlighting these aspects.

 

[JimG]

Anatomy has nothing to do with marriage. Both homosexual and heterosexual couples indulge in sodomy… that is oral and anal sexual relations without procreative intention. We will fail by only highlighting these aspects.

So you pretty much confirm that the current culture has lost its sanity. Marriage has nothing to do with anatomy. Nothing to do with men and women. Nothing to do with complementary sexes. Nothing to do with the ability to generate and provide for the next generation of citizens.

If this is the state of unreason to which current culture has devolved, then we are indeed doomed. There’s no point in anyone seeking marriage because it is meaningless. It is the victim of a society on a suicide mission.

We will have to get rid of the language of husband and wife, bride and groom, father and mother, mom and dad, brother and sister.

Henceforth the marriage certificate will not list husband and wife, but partner 1 and partner 2 and perhaps partners 3 and 4. The birth certificate will indicate no mother and father, but parent 1 and parent 2, and perhaps parents 3, 4, and 5, depending on how many had a hand in the matter. Maybe the IVF company will demand credit as parent 6.

Having no longer any moms or dads, no family, no permanence, children—at least those who survive the abortionist’s knife–will have to live with whatever dysfunctional situation the ‘adults’ deign to give them. I think orphanages would be an improvement.

 

[Monkey1976]

In the United States and only because same-sex couples didn’t pursue legal recognition until relatively recently. In the past, they were too busy trying not to get murdered or jailed.

Once again:

• Rome - Grudgingly accepted homosexual behavior - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages
• Egypt - Accepted homosexual behavior - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages
• Athens - Homosexual behavior considered virtuous - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages
• Sparta - Homosexual behavior REQUIRED among males BY LAW - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages

Seeing a pattern here, Scully? That’s just in the ancient Mediterranean.

 

[rothko26]

So you pretty much confirm that the current culture has lost its sanity. Marriage has nothing to do with anatomy. Nothing to do with men and women. Nothing to do with complementary sexes. Nothing to do with the ability to generate and provide for the next generation of citizens.

If this is the state of unreason to which current culture has devolved, then we are indeed doomed. There’s no point in anyone seeking marriage because it is meaningless. It is the victim of a society on a suicide mission.

We will have to get rid of the language of husband and wife, bride and groom, father and mother, mom and dad, brother and sister.

Henceforth the marriage certificate will not list husband and wife, but partner 1 and partner 2 and perhaps partners 3 and 4. The birth certificate will indicate no mother and father, but parent 1 and parent 2, and perhaps parents 3, 4, and 5, depending on how many had a hand in the matter. Maybe the IVF company will demand credit as parent 6.

Having no longer any moms or dads, no family, no permanence, children—at least those who survive the abortionist’s knife–will have to live with whatever dysfunctional situation the ‘adults’ deign to give them. I think orphanages would be an improvement.

Actually no. I believe that the heterosexual norm will continue… and provide very well for the next generation… whilst everyone else will do as they please.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Rome - Grudgingly accepted homosexual behavior - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages

Gay marriage was legally recognized in the Roman Empire until 342 C.E.

Athens - Homosexual behavior considered virtuous - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages. Sparta - Homosexual behavior REQUIRED among males BY LAW - Did not recognize homosexual relationships as legal marriages.

Also legally recognized until the rise of Rome.

Seeing a pattern here, Scully? That’s just in the ancient Mediterranean.

Scully?

 

[seakelp]

Scully?

Dude. X-Files.

I think gay marriage is a political issue, to be decided by the people. And it will be legalized (or not) through the political process - as is proper in our system of government.

I bear no ill-will to homosexuals, and many of my close friends, whom I love, are gay. And honestly, if I had the opportunity, I’d probably vote to legalize gay marriage (I already did so for civil unions, at least).

The fact is, marriage as a civil institution is a contractual bond. Yes, it has more social and religious meanings (and a variety of those, at that). But ultimately, the state’s interest in promoting marriage is furthering the happiness of each citizen. That being so, I see no reason to deny homosexuals happiness.

But, I’m still trying to sort it all out. It’s a complicated issue!

 

[Monkey1976]

Gay marriage was legally recognized in the Roman Empire until 342 C.E.

Did you not read my response to this false assertion in post 692? Here it is again:

Using this logic, one could say that same-sex “marraige” was permitted in the United States until DOMA was passed.

Even though it was not specifically declared as illegal until the Theodosian Code of AD342, the definition of marriage in Roman law was clear from very early in the Republic: Conubium could only exist between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen. Exceptions could be made for foreigners, but never for slaves. In every account of same-sex “marriage” ceremonies in ancient Rome, there is a universal theme: No matter how elaborate the ceremonies, these are not marriages, and the participants are fools for trying to do the impossible. This link goes into quite a bit of detail on the topic.

Also legally recognized until the rise of Rome.

Citation for this assertion? Every source I can find regarding marriage laws in ancient Athens address it only as being between male and female. I would also note that you’re totally ignoring Sparta.

Scully?

Not an X-Files fan?

 

[JimG]

Actually no. I believe that the heterosexual norm will continue… and provide very well for the next generation… whilst everyone else will do as they please.

I’m afraid I do not share your benign view. I’ve stated in many recent posts that heterosexuals have already nearly destroyed the institution of marriage, through contraception, divorce, cohabitation, fornication, adultery, abortion. Over 40% of children are born out of wedlock, over 70% in some places, indicative of extreme family breakdown.

So the fall of marriage is and will not be the sole fault of gay marriage. It’s been the brunt of attack for decades. But gay marriage will provide the final blow which brings it down, because it breaks the essential meaning of marriage. Many people will finally realize that, and the institution will go downhill and fall into disuse. Children, who have always been the losers in the destruction of marriage, will continue to be the losers, as of course, will civilization.

 

[littlenothing]

You know, EmpororNapoleon, you can watch X Files on Netflix or Hulu. Highly recommended spiritual sci fi. But don’t bother seeing the second movie.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Gay marriage was legally recognized in the Roman Empire until 342 C.E.

Also legally recognized until the rise of Rome.

Scully?

Page 180 in ‘Roman Homosexuality’ by Craig Arthur Williams, says Roman law did not recognise such marriage

Constantius II and Constans officially prohibited gay marriage in 342 C E but before that some homosexuals had marriage type ceremonies but they weren’t officially recognised by law

 

[epan]

1200 was not in the “Elizabethan period”, which was centuries later.

If your paper was about Elizabethan misogyny, either you or the professors selected the topic. Either way, there was a belief going in or it would not have been the subject of the research or the paper. There can be little doubt that if one wants to find misogyny in the writings of clerics and academicians, he’ll find it. The same would be true today.

I, too, wrote many a research paper with a point of view, and I know how it works. I get it. Want to present a point of view, and have the energy and intelligence to get evidence to support it, and you’ll succeed with the paper or the debate. One does need to be careful not to believe one’s own product overmuch, of course.

And most erotic anything is abusive of its very nature, then as now. And the women were every bit as ribald or saintly as the men, perhaps more so than now as to both.

However, if one looks at the literature of various periods (and you were talking initially about the year 1200, not the Elizabethan period) one can reasonably assume the writers are describing things fairly accurately or their work would not have been popular at the time, let alone stood the test of time. If one looks at Shakespeare, for example, (and understands well enough to know a lot of it is farcical…said for laughs) which really was written in the Elizabethan period, one does not find massive male domination or cruelty toward women. The women give as good as they get in the exchanges. They are represented as often witty, as sometimes controlling, as sometimes cruel, as often outsmarting and outmaneuvering males, as having wealth and engaging in trade. And yes, as sometimes stupid or victimized, just as sometimes the males are.

Going back a bit before the Elizabethan era, could anyone describe Chaucer’s Wife of Bath as downtrodden, poverty-stricken or lacking independence without seeming ridiculous?

Of course, those times were often brutish regardless of one’s gender. If one reads about the lives of common soldiers, landless peasants, sailors, apprentices, servitors of all sorts, debtors, people condemned to servitude, it could be a mighty tough life.

Yes, I know when Elizabeth reigned. I had a double major, molecular biology / english lit… My focus in literature was Elizabethan/Jacobian. Thank you so much for telling me twice that Elizabeth was not reigning in 1200. Please tell me when she reigned, and please do it twice. No maybe four times. I just can’t figure it out.

You have absolutely no idea what the structure of the class was, how the paper topic was chosen, what sources were used, how I arrived at my conclusions, how thorough my research was, what feedback or guidance I received, or anything else which you claim to know about the course work for that class. Why do you pretend to?

Your sociological approach is very thorough. Chaucer. Your survey is quite robust… Oh yes, you like to make assumptions. I forgot.

 

[epan]

In this state, at least (and I am told in others) it is exactly expressed as the right of the child, not of the parents. And yes, joint custody is presumed appropriate in all cases unless some good reason is shown why it should not be. Now, when it comes to joint physical custody, obviously the child can’t be in two places at the same time, so the year is divided, with as nearly an equal split as possible.

Not good, because divorce is not good. But it’s what’s there.

One of the justices pointed out in the oral arguments that perhaps the rights of the children to see their gay parents married should be considered. You can play this game from any number of angles.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thousands March for REAL Marriage in WDC as Supreme Court Weighs Proposition 8 and DOMA

youtube.com/watch?v=-Cxkd92Yy4I

Do infertile couples clinch the case for same-sex marriage?

 

[CaptFun]

Kudos to Abyssinia for the gazillions of links she provides! I read someone post earlier about how long into the night you were posting!..Tireless comes to mind!

Peace, Mark

Second … make it third this motion. Abyssinia won’t see it possibly as she is bounding through cyberspace tracking down links for Catholic Answers. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pause to thank her.

Just “came” from reading one on this subject that she posted.