If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.
I don't think that you fully understood my post.
My reference to the way things "should be" is merely to acknowledge in name the underlying reality of the way they are. People form permanent loving unions regardless of whether the state puts the stamp of approval of "married" on a piece of paper. Futher, civil consequences of dependancy relationships, and chidren, in most jurisdictions already independant, to a very great extent, of whether an official "marriage" has taken place.
Marriage is what you pledge to your spouse. If you are relying on the piece of state-issued paper, may I suggest that you are relying on a crutch.
Marriage is a public act. It's the official recocnizition from the society of the union of two people. There is nothing private here.
Not for everyone, for many their marriage is very private. Definitions of marriage and how marriages work differ with each couple. For many it is a union within the eyes of their spiritual faith, to hell with societal values of marriage, their values and their spritual values come first.
I hadn't seen your post before Powerdoc, but you've put it quite concisely. Thanks.
Let's all go make gang bang now!
Sure and just ignore all those societal adultery laws on the books. Better yet lets have the federal government insure that there is no other type of divorce nationwide but no fault divorce.
Or how about we get rid of any law that allows a wife to seek punitive measures with regard to a divorce settlement or likewise get rid of the laws in some states that allow the wife to sue the woman who broke up her marriage for what "consenting adults" did in private.
Likewise, I posted about a state that had recently ended it, but some states still have common-law marriage statutes on the books whereby they marry in an entirely private manner. They simply declare themselves married and live as a married couple. I'm not aware of any common law couples attempting to have this resolved at the federal level, but if (or likely when) they did, it would be a privacy matter.
If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.
I don't think that you fully understood my post.
That post certainly dealt with how you think ?marriage should be recognized? (sic). This post of yours however, expresses a misunderstanding of how things actually are.
Quote:
My reference to the way things "should be" is merely to acknowledge in name the underlying reality of the way they are. People form permanent loving unions regardless of whether the state puts the stamp of approval of "married" on a piece of paper. Futher, civil consequences of dependancy relationships, and chidren, in most jurisdictions already independant, to a very great extent, of whether an official "marriage" has taken place.
Marriage is what you pledge to your spouse. If you are relying on the piece of state-issued paper, may I suggest that you are relying on a crutch.
No, marriage is a public commitment those getting married make toward each other as well as toward their community according to the way marriage is defined, regulated, and thus recognised by that community.
Marriage always involved the larger community, whether religious or civil. For long time, tribes, religious communities, and states, disapproved of unregualted intimate relationships which involved sex, reproduction, and offspring, and so they created models of codified relationships, that's what we call ?marriage?.
Today, non-marital and extra-marital relationships are fully legal, or at least they are in places of the world one may call decent.
People can commit to relationships without committing to the rules of marriage as they are legally defined. However, whenever it gets beyond what free adults do in private and on their own volition, it becomes again a public matter, and therefore the law introduces rules and regulations (even more when it invloves offspring).
But that does not mean marriage itself ceased to be a public matter, far from it, this seems to be what you misunderstood.
Sure and just ignore all those societal adultery laws on the books. Better yet lets have the federal government insure that there is no other type of divorce nationwide but no fault divorce.
Or how about we get rid of any law that allows a wife to seek punitive measures with regard to a divorce settlement or likewise get rid of the laws in some states that allow the wife to sue the woman who broke up her marriage for what "consenting adults" did in private.
Likewise, I posted about a state that had recently ended it, but some states still have common-law marriage statutes on the books whereby they marry in an entirely private manner. They simply declare themselves married and live as a married couple. I'm not aware of any common law couples attempting to have this resolved at the federal level, but if (or likely when) they did, it would be a privacy matter.
Now that you've bypassed Powerdoc's point, read Immanuel's post. He's pretty clear about it too.
Now that you've bypassed Powerdoc's point, read Immanuel's post. He's pretty clear about it too.
I find it very odd that you appeal to traditionalism to justiyfy homosexual marriage. What next? Dowries and arrangements? I mean those were also acts that were used when communities had interests in marriages.
Likewise his points have been bypassed by not only homosexuals seeking marriage, but by the large number of folks who don't seek marriage at all. Courts have found that you cannot discriminate against cohabitating couples in home purchases, rentals and in financial and legal matters. It was common practice for banks, for example to have each person qualify individually for a loan instead of calling them a "household." They now treat the two as one. (and do so with homosexual cohabitating couples as well)
Society had a role in insuring marriage largely because marriage and the commitment associated with it typically generate wealth. However now we have no fault divorce, and large numbers of single parent, impoverished households. The precident is clear. You don't need a reason to divorce. Society, even if the costs are passed on to them, has no role in whom you love and when.
The point is that over time as with all things in this modern age, marriage has become personal. This is why homosexual marriage can even be considered in the first place. It is why the Massachusettes court found for it 4-3 even when the entire country is still largely opposed to it. If it were a societal matter then society has declared how they feel. Instead these rights are being based off of personal and privacy matters.
The point is that over time as with all things in this modern age, marriage has become personal.
You're misguided. Marriage has always had personal aspects to it, but it is in fact a construct of society. Sodomy is not. It exists outside the confines of a society.
Marriage has nothing to do with privacy or a bedroom. It has no relation to sodomy.
You're misguided. Marriage has always had personal aspects to it, but it is in fact a construct of society. Sodomy is not. It exists outside the confines of a society.
Marriage has nothing to do with privacy or a bedroom. It has no relation to sodomy.
I believe you the misguided one. How can sodomy be anything other than a societal construct? It serves no biological purpose. Marriage has, in the past been assigned absolutely no personal status at times and has also changed from polygamous to monogamous within various societies at various times. Marriage is a societal construct but so is monogomy.
Marriages have been arranged to insure bloodlines, transfer of wealth, or simply to insure a family unit when resources were too scarce to allow survival outside of one. Love seldom had anything to do with it. Marriage was about creating a unit that had enough wealth and resources to survive.
In this day and age those have all been bypassed. If two single mom's wish to buy or rent a home together to minimize their costs, society will treat them as one unit. If I cosign on your loan, they add my credit and my risk to your loan. You and I would not have to be married. It has become a individual personal manner which is why the courts have been able to rule in favor of homosexual marriage. They consider to be free of restraints on child rearing, fiscal matters, and societal desires. Plain and simple it is only about who you love. When the same criteria is applied for polygamy, they will get the same result.
I think some of you guys are completely back asswards on the public nature of marriage tradition.
A wedding is public, marriage is not. Ever hear of the phrase it is a family problem, or whatever happens between a husband and wife is their business. These are the underlying themes of marriage, marriage is a private thing. If a couple gets married, that union does not include you or I or their mother. Unfortunately the consideration of the privacy of marriage also led to the deplorabled crimes of spousal abuse to be overlooked by law enforcement.
Now all we need are the new hot fall shows that feature polygamists living as normal suburban couples... err... well whatever they would be.
Nick
Implying here, that all of the shows, hosted, of course, by the "liberal media," that show gays are part of the problem . . . that very same problem that was started by or included the soddomy law being over-turned that lead to that "slippery-slope"
need I put on my chewing-tabaqui voice . . . naw . . . it's too obvious
Clearly this is the downfall of our moral fabric . . . its probably that radical gay agenda . . and they're probably backed by knife wielding women too!!!
we're all sliding doooown that slippery slope . . . .. .
Implying here, that all of the shows, hosted, of course, by the "liberal media," that show gays are part of the problem . . . that very same problem that was started by or included the soddomy law being over-turned that lead to that "slippery-slope"
need I put on my chewing-tabaqui voice . . . naw . . . it's too obvious
Clearly this is the downfall of our moral fabric . . . its probably that radical gay agenda . . and they're probably backed by knife wielding women too!!!
we're all sliding doooown that slippery slope . . . .. .
Keep showing your ignorance.
I don't imply a background conspiracy. There are plenty of civil rights groups that contend that who we see and cast on television reflects our tolerance and diversity as a culture. So the increased number of homosexual characters reflects our growing comfort with homosexuality.
If anything my post implied that America is going to have to have to grow more comfortable with bigamy and that television would reflect that as it has other areas.
You are welcome to show and tell your own views of bigamy. Just make sure that if you stand against it you are able to give a compelling state interest for doing so, otherwise be prepared to watch it overturned.
Why is it that to me your real motives are so obviouse yet you feel that you have to backtrack on you supposed reasons for posting or even starting this thread at all?!
Why is it that to me your real motives are so obviouse yet you feel that you have to backtrack on you supposed reasons for posting or even starting this thread at all?!
And from me in the very first post....
Quote:
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
Where do you read in there anything against homosexuality?
There are many homosexual advocates that have declared that the ruling would only relate to homosexuality. There were opinions contrary to that. (mine being one of them) However believing a ruling went too far doesn't mean you don't endorse the part of it you agree with. You of course are bright enough to realize this, but you prefer the mocking sourthern drawl approach to discussion.
I have clearly advocated for homosexual rights. However there are those that advance an agenda at any cost. Hanging sodomy on the privacy right is too broad. It could have been handled with equal protection. Contending this doesn't make one hate homosexuals. However it is stupid and foolish to to declare that ruling wasn't too broad when there are suddenly cases citing it to allow polygamy. In the absence of a good state motivation, they will get bigamy legalized. Stating that, again, doesn't mean one hates homosexuality.
By the way, I do recall asking you your views on bigamy. I guess you prefer to keep them to yourself rather then actually bring your own views into the discussion. Perhaps its because you don't want someone to see your own glass house while you are chucking rocks about.
Keep tossing up that dust, it goes so well with the pick up truck I envision you driving while chewing tobacco.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Wow... I'm an area of study....
This week.. the trumptman post...
Next week.. the trumptman reply....
Nick
That doesn't answer my question.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.
I don't think that you fully understood my post.
My reference to the way things "should be" is merely to acknowledge in name the underlying reality of the way they are. People form permanent loving unions regardless of whether the state puts the stamp of approval of "married" on a piece of paper. Futher, civil consequences of dependancy relationships, and chidren, in most jurisdictions already independant, to a very great extent, of whether an official "marriage" has taken place.
Marriage is what you pledge to your spouse. If you are relying on the piece of state-issued paper, may I suggest that you are relying on a crutch.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Marriage is a public act. It's the official recocnizition from the society of the union of two people. There is nothing private here.
Sexual habits are private, and people are free to make gang band if they want, wether they are married and not. But marriage is a public thing.
I hadn't seen your post before Powerdoc, but you've put it quite concisely. Thanks.
Let's all go make gang bang now!
Originally posted by PowerDoc
Marriage is a public act. It's the official recocnizition from the society of the union of two people. There is nothing private here.
Not for everyone, for many their marriage is very private. Definitions of marriage and how marriages work differ with each couple. For many it is a union within the eyes of their spiritual faith, to hell with societal values of marriage, their values and their spritual values come first.
Hence my modest proposal.
Originally posted by bunge
I hadn't seen your post before Powerdoc, but you've put it quite concisely. Thanks.
Let's all go make gang bang now!
Sure and just ignore all those societal adultery laws on the books.
Or how about we get rid of any law that allows a wife to seek punitive measures with regard to a divorce settlement or likewise get rid of the laws in some states that allow the wife to sue the woman who broke up her marriage for what "consenting adults" did in private.
Likewise, I posted about a state that had recently ended it, but some states still have common-law marriage statutes on the books whereby they marry in an entirely private manner. They simply declare themselves married and live as a married couple. I'm not aware of any common law couples attempting to have this resolved at the federal level, but if (or likely when) they did, it would be a privacy matter.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
If you care to re-read my previous post (which I won't quote in its entirety again) you will notice it is about how things are, while yours is about how you think things should be.
I don't think that you fully understood my post.
That post certainly dealt with how you think ?marriage should be recognized? (sic). This post of yours however, expresses a misunderstanding of how things actually are.
My reference to the way things "should be" is merely to acknowledge in name the underlying reality of the way they are. People form permanent loving unions regardless of whether the state puts the stamp of approval of "married" on a piece of paper. Futher, civil consequences of dependancy relationships, and chidren, in most jurisdictions already independant, to a very great extent, of whether an official "marriage" has taken place.
Marriage is what you pledge to your spouse. If you are relying on the piece of state-issued paper, may I suggest that you are relying on a crutch.
No, marriage is a public commitment those getting married make toward each other as well as toward their community according to the way marriage is defined, regulated, and thus recognised by that community.
Marriage always involved the larger community, whether religious or civil. For long time, tribes, religious communities, and states, disapproved of unregualted intimate relationships which involved sex, reproduction, and offspring, and so they created models of codified relationships, that's what we call ?marriage?.
Today, non-marital and extra-marital relationships are fully legal, or at least they are in places of the world one may call decent.
People can commit to relationships without committing to the rules of marriage as they are legally defined. However, whenever it gets beyond what free adults do in private and on their own volition, it becomes again a public matter, and therefore the law introduces rules and regulations (even more when it invloves offspring).
But that does not mean marriage itself ceased to be a public matter, far from it, this seems to be what you misunderstood.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure and just ignore all those societal adultery laws on the books.
Or how about we get rid of any law that allows a wife to seek punitive measures with regard to a divorce settlement or likewise get rid of the laws in some states that allow the wife to sue the woman who broke up her marriage for what "consenting adults" did in private.
Likewise, I posted about a state that had recently ended it, but some states still have common-law marriage statutes on the books whereby they marry in an entirely private manner. They simply declare themselves married and live as a married couple. I'm not aware of any common law couples attempting to have this resolved at the federal level, but if (or likely when) they did, it would be a privacy matter.
Now that you've bypassed Powerdoc's point, read Immanuel's post. He's pretty clear about it too.
Originally posted by bunge
Now that you've bypassed Powerdoc's point, read Immanuel's post. He's pretty clear about it too.
I find it very odd that you appeal to traditionalism to justiyfy homosexual marriage. What next? Dowries and arrangements? I mean those were also acts that were used when communities had interests in marriages.
Likewise his points have been bypassed by not only homosexuals seeking marriage, but by the large number of folks who don't seek marriage at all. Courts have found that you cannot discriminate against cohabitating couples in home purchases, rentals and in financial and legal matters. It was common practice for banks, for example to have each person qualify individually for a loan instead of calling them a "household." They now treat the two as one. (and do so with homosexual cohabitating couples as well)
Society had a role in insuring marriage largely because marriage and the commitment associated with it typically generate wealth. However now we have no fault divorce, and large numbers of single parent, impoverished households. The precident is clear. You don't need a reason to divorce. Society, even if the costs are passed on to them, has no role in whom you love and when.
The point is that over time as with all things in this modern age, marriage has become personal. This is why homosexual marriage can even be considered in the first place. It is why the Massachusettes court found for it 4-3 even when the entire country is still largely opposed to it. If it were a societal matter then society has declared how they feel. Instead these rights are being based off of personal and privacy matters.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The point is that over time as with all things in this modern age, marriage has become personal.
You're misguided. Marriage has always had personal aspects to it, but it is in fact a construct of society. Sodomy is not. It exists outside the confines of a society.
Marriage has nothing to do with privacy or a bedroom. It has no relation to sodomy.
Originally posted by bunge
You're misguided. Marriage has always had personal aspects to it, but it is in fact a construct of society. Sodomy is not. It exists outside the confines of a society.
Marriage has nothing to do with privacy or a bedroom. It has no relation to sodomy.
I believe you the misguided one. How can sodomy be anything other than a societal construct? It serves no biological purpose. Marriage has, in the past been assigned absolutely no personal status at times and has also changed from polygamous to monogamous within various societies at various times. Marriage is a societal construct but so is monogomy.
Marriages have been arranged to insure bloodlines, transfer of wealth, or simply to insure a family unit when resources were too scarce to allow survival outside of one. Love seldom had anything to do with it. Marriage was about creating a unit that had enough wealth and resources to survive.
In this day and age those have all been bypassed. If two single mom's wish to buy or rent a home together to minimize their costs, society will treat them as one unit. If I cosign on your loan, they add my credit and my risk to your loan. You and I would not have to be married. It has become a individual personal manner which is why the courts have been able to rule in favor of homosexual marriage. They consider to be free of restraints on child rearing, fiscal matters, and societal desires. Plain and simple it is only about who you love. When the same criteria is applied for polygamy, they will get the same result.
Nick
A wedding is public, marriage is not. Ever hear of the phrase it is a family problem, or whatever happens between a husband and wife is their business. These are the underlying themes of marriage, marriage is a private thing. If a couple gets married, that union does not include you or I or their mother. Unfortunately the consideration of the privacy of marriage also led to the deplorabled crimes of spousal abuse to be overlooked by law enforcement.
Father sues to teach daughter about bigamy
Now all we need are the new hot fall shows that feature polygamists living as normal suburban couples... err... well whatever they would be.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Here we go again...
Father sues to teach daughter about bigamy
Now all we need are the new hot fall shows that feature polygamists living as normal suburban couples... err... well whatever they would be.
Nick
Implying here, that all of the shows, hosted, of course, by the "liberal media," that show gays are part of the problem . . . that very same problem that was started by or included the soddomy law being over-turned that lead to that "slippery-slope"
need I put on my chewing-tabaqui voice . . . naw . . . it's too obvious
Clearly this is the downfall of our moral fabric . . . its probably that radical gay agenda . . and they're probably backed by knife wielding women too!!!
we're all sliding doooown that slippery slope . . . .. .
Originally posted by pfflam
Implying here, that all of the shows, hosted, of course, by the "liberal media," that show gays are part of the problem . . . that very same problem that was started by or included the soddomy law being over-turned that lead to that "slippery-slope"
need I put on my chewing-tabaqui voice . . . naw . . . it's too obvious
Clearly this is the downfall of our moral fabric . . . its probably that radical gay agenda . . and they're probably backed by knife wielding women too!!!
we're all sliding doooown that slippery slope . . . .. .
Keep showing your ignorance.
I don't imply a background conspiracy. There are plenty of civil rights groups that contend that who we see and cast on television reflects our tolerance and diversity as a culture. So the increased number of homosexual characters reflects our growing comfort with homosexuality.
If anything my post implied that America is going to have to have to grow more comfortable with bigamy and that television would reflect that as it has other areas.
You are welcome to show and tell your own views of bigamy. Just make sure that if you stand against it you are able to give a compelling state interest for doing so, otherwise be prepared to watch it overturned.
Nick
Why is it that to me your real motives are so obviouse yet you feel that you have to backtrack on you supposed reasons for posting or even starting this thread at all?!
Originally posted by pfflam
You are in denial.
Why is it that to me your real motives are so obviouse yet you feel that you have to backtrack on you supposed reasons for posting or even starting this thread at all?!
And from me in the very first post....
Simply put, in my opinion the Texas ruling tossed out the baby with the bath water. There were two issues addressed. The right to privacy and equal protection. Using equal protection they could have simply ruled that homosexual sodomy had to be legal since heterosexual sodomy was legal. Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost.
Where do you read in there anything against homosexuality?
There are many homosexual advocates that have declared that the ruling would only relate to homosexuality. There were opinions contrary to that. (mine being one of them) However believing a ruling went too far doesn't mean you don't endorse the part of it you agree with. You of course are bright enough to realize this, but you prefer the mocking sourthern drawl approach to discussion.
I have clearly advocated for homosexual rights. However there are those that advance an agenda at any cost. Hanging sodomy on the privacy right is too broad. It could have been handled with equal protection. Contending this doesn't make one hate homosexuals. However it is stupid and foolish to to declare that ruling wasn't too broad when there are suddenly cases citing it to allow polygamy. In the absence of a good state motivation, they will get bigamy legalized. Stating that, again, doesn't mean one hates homosexuality.
By the way, I do recall asking you your views on bigamy. I guess you prefer to keep them to yourself rather then actually bring your own views into the discussion. Perhaps its because you don't want someone to see your own glass house while you are chucking rocks about.
Keep tossing up that dust, it goes so well with the pick up truck I envision you driving while chewing tobacco.
Nick