Part of the definition of contract is that the parties involved must be competent. Two Seven years are not competent to contract a marriage, nor are two sisters. To say that two women “who love one another” are competent is a mere assertion with no better claim than two persons who chose to live together chastely.
Yes we are, I had many religious points, but I made my non-religious points in relation to the law fairly clear I thought.
The word man as viewed by the law has nothing to do with the sexual anatomy of a man, this is not an argument, it’s fact, so why can women not be recognised as men by law? if the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman are ignored by law, why can’t women be reffered to as men under the law?
Yet women are not reffered to as men under the law are they? If your idea of equality is to call two different things the same name, than that is illogical.
So to call all women, men, is the only way for there to be equality?
I am citing logic, the sexual nature makes the unions vastly different, so why do people wish to group them together under the same word as ‘marriage’? a homosexual union is completely different to a heterosexual one.
The sexual complimentarity of the sexes is the reality of marriage and why it’s only between a man and a woman, if the law doesn’t see the differences between the two unions, than that doesnt mean that there is no difference and should therefore be grouped under the same word as marriage.
I apologise, I will try and use more periods and the online dictionary I used to check the spelling of heterosexual was incorrect, I had looked it up incorrectly, thats why I was continuing to spell it incorrectly.
You’re right, two seven year olds can not legally enter into a contract, so example doesn’t even help. And we’re not arguing about whether two sisters should be able to be married anymore than we are about sister and brother being able to get married. Using a hypothetical situation of other prohibited parties getting married if we allow same-sex couples to is a cop-out argument. It serves no purpose. If same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex people will get married. Not seven year olds or sisters.
You’ve only made one clear point so far (several times) which I’ve refuted, but you just keep repeating it. You keep saying that the sexual nature of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are different, and so we can’t call them both marriage. And I keep saying that the government doesn’t care about the sexual nature of the relationship. The sexual nature of ANY two relationships can be vastly different regardless of the sexual orientation. The government doesn’t care what goes on in the bedroom. I’m not sure how I can make that any clearer. They are interested in the specific type of committed relationship between the two people. Whether or not you believe it, two men and two women can have the same relationship that a man and woman do - there are thousands out there right now who do.
I’m not getting where this line of thinking is going. Who cares about calling women men? What does that have to do with same-sex marriage?
Yes, actually that’s exactly what it means. If the law sees no difference, then for the purposes of the law, there’s no difference.
The law has long recognized that children don’t need their biological parents present, or even two parents in order for a marriage to be legal. This argument that many people make about protecting children is based on a significant fallacy: that if we allow same-sex marriage, all of a sudden same-sex couples will start raising children as if they couldn’t before. They already can and do raise children, so saying that you believe they shouldn’t is pointless. There are thousands of families out there right now who are same-sex parent households raising children. So by denying those couples marriage rights, you’re not only NOT preventing what you think should be prevented, but you’re also actually doing a disservice to thousands of REAL children who exist out there right now because their parents don’t have the same legal protections under the law in order to try and prevent HYPOTHETICAL children from ever happening (which you can’t). Do those kids not matter? Unless you snatch them all away from their families and give them to families with opposite sex parents, why don’t they deserve the same protections that other children have?
Don’t ask me that, ask the law that. They recognize that a committed relationship which has a romantic/sexual nature is to be recognized, but they’re the ones who purposefully don’t get into the nature of whatever sex is happening.
Once marriage is mis-defined then anything goes. There is no reason other deviant relationships cannot be codified into law. The law is only sound if we have moral people reasoning with it. Once we excise moral truth then anything goes and will go.
Coming late to this, but, umm, the authors of the Declaration of Independence didn’t really intend to include women or black slaves in their statement about “all men being created equal” so…yeah, looks like you might be “proving” a little more than you want to with that line of reasoning.
Sorry, but the gay marriage issue aside it is quite correct to say the social construct of marriage has changed greatly over time. Look at the Bible even: the historical norm for marriage was a polygamous patriarchal arrangement where wealthy or powerful men had multiple wives and concubines on the side. Then there was the arranged, political marriage setup of the Middle Ages often seen among the wealthy with recognized rights to mistresses for the male nobles. Oh, and in all such arrangements the woman had zero legal rights and was essentially property the husband paid her family for in taking possession of her. Monogamous life long marriage for love is a Western construct only perhaps about five centuries old! To say it has not changed through time is silly.
When was so called “same sex” marriage ever practiced?
I have to say there is no evidence of any kind that this is likely to be the case at all. Please let’s at least make sensible arguments on the issue…gay kids may try out heterosexual relations in an attempt to fit in with the larger social norm of being straight, this doesn’t mean at all that straight kids will “try out” being gay. I’m sorry, but I could have been raised by Elton John and Liberace in a haze of pink boas and Barbara Streisand albums, I stil would never once have thought about trying things out with a dude!
Whenever you start by saying “the Church says…” as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, you realize you’ve lost, don’t you? The Church’s teaching, morally right though it may be, is irrelevant to the issue of American constitutional construction, and your appeal is an invalid appeal to authority.
Children have rights. Life is not some experiment where hedonists get to use children like apparel.I have to say there is no evidence of any kind that this is likely to be the case at all. Please let’s at least make sensible arguments on the issue…gay kids may try out heterosexual relations in an attempt to fit in with the larger social norm of being straight, this doesn’t mean at all that straight kids will “try out” being gay. I’m sorry, but I could have been raised by Elton John and Liberace in a haze of pink boas and Barbara Streisand albums, I stil would never once have thought about trying things out with a dude!
What are you saying here exactly? That gay people are somehow mentally incompetent or lacking normal capacity? This would be…unusual to argue. Please explain.
I agree children have rights. Indeed I actively advocate for fundamental rights of children, particularly the inherent rights of both boys and girls to their intact and whole bodies, the inherent right to bodily autonomy and integrity, that tons of people regularly ignore and trample on, so I’ll bet that I agree with your sentiment more than you probably do yourself!
.There is no love or truth in affirming sin. If we are to love one another that means we want what is best for them, not encouraging sin and false compassion. Sentimentalism is not love.
First of all that some heterosexuals abuse children is not logical evidence we ought to allow those in deviant sexual unions to raise children. That only makes sense if you mistakenly equate homosexual encounters with marriage. Simply living together as mother and father does not make a marriage or a family. It takes a male/father and a female/mother to make a marriage.I agree children have rights. Indeed I actively advocate for fundamental rights of children, particularly the inherent rights of both boys and girls to their intact and whole bodies, the inherent right to bodily autonomy and integrity, that tons of people regularly ignore and trample on, so I’ll bet that I agree with your sentiment more than you probably do yourself!
However, I find the implication here, in this debate, unwarranted. Who says all gay couples want children at all? Many don’t I assure you. But among those who do, who says they all plan to “use” the children? That’s a ridiculous assumption: plenty of them just want to give of themselves and love a child and raise them, just like anyone else. Plenty of straight parents use their children like “apparel” though. Should we take children away from parents if we think they aren’t “loving” them enough? What do you really mean in making this assertion anyway? It confuses me for its lack of obvious support or purpose.
Ok, so here we come to something interesting I think. Not allowing gays to enter into civil marriage will not prevent gay couples from raising children as has already been pointed out. A question: what would you advocate we do about such situations at present? A woman is married to a man and they have a child. They divorce and he is a lousy fellow so she ends up with full custody and is a good mother. She then comes out of the closet, having been a lesbian her whole life but in fear of living it. She meets and falls in love with a woman and the woman moves in with her and her son. Do we take the child away?
It should not be allowed at all. Children have rights.
Perhaps, that would have to be on a case by case basis. But, why should such an terrible situation lead you to think mis-defining marriage suddenly makes sense?
Perhaps. It certainly is an unjust situation for that poor child. Why must every desire adults act on have to impact the innocent child?
Ok, first of all, I have not stated I’m in favor of gay marriage, or that I find it morally acceptable. I don’t think it’s moral. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be legally permitted though, and not does that mean that we should embrace poor arguments in support of the hard-line position against it. Bad arguments are bad, whether about morality or baking.
Again: A contract between two persons requires they be competent to enter into the agreement. Those who change the law want to say that two males are competent. What I was talking about was the argument made in favor of this change which asserts that any two people who “love" one another ought to be able to marry. Sort of “have sex, will marry."