But you’d have to add back in the ones that got deleted thanks to our ever-vigilant moderators during the first few hours.I can’t believe how quickly this got to 1000 posts. And if we cut out all the redundant ones we could probably cut that number by over half.
IBTL
I agree. And since sexual intercourse, as strictly defined, can’t be a requirement for a valid civil marriage, there is no reason that siblings cannot form unions that confer all those “rights” to a partner via a marriage. A marriage between siblings wouldn’t even be incest, technically, without the sexual component.
No, marriage is a private covenant between a man and a woman. It is a natural institution, and needs no governmental aide to come about. The sacrament includes God in that covenant, and bestows graces. These are both completely private things. Marriage is 100% private.
And some black folk don’t like interracial marriages being compared to gay marriage. It’s sort of… racist. It’s like saying, “You know, the Irish and the English used to be forbidden to marry. So… why can’t two women marry?”
In a country with a protestant majority, it’s no wonder Catholics at times sound like fundamentalists.
Statistically speaking homosexuals whether “married” in a civil relationship or just dating have a kind of hippie free love understanding usually. f(you can do what ever you want sexually just don’t get emotionally attached to someone else) Traditionally married people don’t and therefore more divorce. (if you want stats you’ll have to look them up yourself-you won’t find any on pro-homosexual pages you’ll have to go to NARTH etc. to get the FACTS)It is somewhat of a shame that something like is to happen. A majority of voters that voted for Proposition 8 are upset about this and I don’t blame them. THen on the other hand a lot of gays and lesbians are overjoyed about this. One out of two Traditional marriages (meaniong marriage between a man and woman) ends up in divorce and Gay marriages are not that way. I don’t know why about this but gay and lesbian marriages last better than the traditional marriage. This is shocking isn’t it? What can be done now?
I didn’t compare interracial couples to gay couples. I applied the legal principles found in Loving v. Virginia (‘Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival’ [388 U.S. 1, 1967]) to the case at hand as was done in the decision in Perry. Further, and to be frank, I don’t much care if some people don’t like the comparison; the fact is that until 1967 there were 16 states in the Union where people couldn’t marry the person they loved because of the baseless idea that marriage was between people of the same race and that interracial “marriage” would undermine that fundamental building block of our society. The situation is similar here and now; people are being prevented from trying to find an island of happiness in a world full of misery and build a life with the person they love but the many are saying that this happiness is disallowed them because of the gender of the person they love.
Isn’t this the problem precisely? Marriage_Church has a set of rather stringent requirements which must be fulfilled before a man and a woman can be wed in the Catholic Church. Marriage_State, on the other hand, is a legal institution which amounts to civil recognition of a relationship and confers numerous benefits (visitation and decision making rights in hospital, Social Security, family leave, portability and validity between states &c&c). I will happily grant that what most Catholics think about when they say ‘marriage’ is marriage_church but most liberals, atheists and gays and lesbians seeking to marry intend is marriage_state.
I believe that is a more accurate representation of our society’s cruel oppression. Your personal morality may keep you from sympathizing with the plight of all but one of those groups, but that is no reason to deny them their basic human rights.
And you can’t apply Loving to gay marriage without comparing interracial couples to gay couples. You did exactly that.
We gathered that, but thanks for sharing.
And so?
No, it isn’t: that is what we are discussing. The question is whether a gender exclusion has a rational basis. That has exactly ZERO to do with whether a racial exclusion has a rational basis.
Do you even listen to yourself? What pompous, self-righteous noise. Try logically defending your position.
With animals, there is the question of consent. However, there are other relationships which are currently disfavored, which ought to be included by the court’s analysis.
Setting aside those situations which pose problems of consent (bestiality and pedophilia), assuming every party in an existing marriage consents I see no reason why the situations you described don’t hold. To be very frank, I don’t care who the people up the block marry; if it’s a man who wants to marry a man I wish them the best of luck and all good happiness. So too if it’s a man and a woman who both want to add another man or another woman to the mix or if it’s people who happen to share a bit of consanguinity (I could see a legal case being made here for the children resulting from such unions and hence under the rubric of public health disallowing them, I have not however made a careful study of applicable genetic, embryological, social, psychological or legal principles at play in this case and reserve full judgment).
Loving applies to show that marriage is a fundamental right. That’s how it applies.
You mean how I said I’m not saying you’re racist of homophobic? Duly noted.
I am logically defending my position but this isn’t just about the legal question here–unless you’re a legal scholar of some sort and what to have an intellectually rigorous academic discussion on the topic but I’m guessing you’re not–but an emotive one as well. This speaks to that dimension of the issue.
Granted and as I’ve said I see no impediment to them in principle–at least on the whole–but they were not germane to the case at hand; when a polygamist brings suit then we can start talking about that.
I’m not fighting- I would not vote for or against gay marriage. I’d stay home and hear about the results the next day.
Thank you for making me smile and getting that distinction a lot of people seem to be missing.
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger had this to say on that question:
