One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because often that is not the case. Many civil unions do not enjoy the same benefits and even worse the courts may side with the family AGAINST the other when one dies meaning a angry family can put someone out on the street quickly.

You're changing the terms of the argument. I said exact same rights, different name. You can't imply that I'm wrong by changing what I said to mean not exactly the same rights, different name...

[Zachstar]

Because again there is no protection against that changing and civil union is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state.

I once agreed that civil unions were by far the best way. However the fact is it is being abused to deny homo couples their rights.

Now I am willing to say that IF Civil Unions under a supreme court full recent ruling were giving the exact same status and rights it would be fine and I think the issue would end there. But I doubt that would happen.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because again there is no protection against that changing and civil union is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state.

I once agreed that civil unions were by far the best way. However the fact is it is being abused to deny homo couples their rights.

Now I am willing to say that IF Civil Unions under a supreme court full recent ruling were giving the exact same status and rights it would be fine and I think the issue would end there. But I doubt that would happen.

There is no similar protection to the term "gay marriage".

The point is, life's not fair. But we have to start somewhere...

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I guess I'm going to have to go on the lamb...

You're not allowed within 500 ft of the lamb. She got a restraining order.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Because again there is no protection against that changing and civil union is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state

But marriage is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state too.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

And I would argue that there have been, and perhaps still are, societies where commitment to sexual relations and production of children with one partner only is neither required nor expected of either sex. People have sex with whoever they have choose to have sex with, whether one partner or many, and a woman may have the children of one man or many different men and nobody really cares.

No need to argue, I think we're mostly in agreement. Yep, there are societies like that, and some even exist today on remote islands in Polynesia. However, those societies are rare because they generally don't exist where there is any kind of competition.

Saying that there is a biological reason why one system may be "preferable" to another when it comes to the survival of the species is one thing.

To turn a person into a second-class citizen and deny them the rights and opportunities that another person gets just by virtue of having a penis because of some supposed "biological imperative" that is not an imperative in any meaningful sense to the person being denied those rights, is quite another.

And I completely agree. My only point is that we tend to end up with male-dominated societies because those were the ones that survived and their biolgical nature simply carried over into the society they developed.

This tendency is observable in many species of primate. Where competition is fierce, groups of primates raid other groups, kill the males, kill the infants, and then rape the females before taking them into captivity. People are no exception, as demonstrated by the conduct of armies for most of our recorded history. Those victorious armies went on to reproduce and build societies in their own image. In short, we're the descendants of the biggest jerks the human race managed to spawn.

The notion of limiting a woman to one sexual partner has as much to do with the patriarchal imperative of guaranteed paternity as it does anything else. It wasn't about having children, it was about making sure that any child that came along was the legitimate progeny of the husband/owner of the woman who bore it. At a time when it was impossible to prove conclusively who a child's father was by any scientific means, the only way to ensure that the child you passed your property and position on to was actually yours was to control the sexual behavior of the mother.

Again, I agree, but you're putting the cart before the horse in a couple of respects. For one thing, it was about having children, even when they weren't legitimate progeny. Men have had mistresses, frequented brothels, avoided commitment, and done other unseemly stuff of that nature for like, our entire history. They still do it today, even in this society, because they are the descendants of men who did such things. Men who behaved in that way had more children, and those children went on to create social structures that reflected their own natures. This is how societies get to be patriarchal. It's biology and evolution that make societies and cultures they way they are.

That said, you're completely right about the controlling the mother bit. Like I said, we're the descendants of jerks, and boys, jerks or not, have the testosterone and the accompanying tendency to just drag women along with them, through force if need be.

In a patriarchal society.......

Excellent observations, and yet again, I agree.

In matrilineal societies, or matrifocal societies (not to be confused with a matriarchal society, where the positions and privileges of the sexes are the true reverse of what they are in a patriarchy*), woman typically have far more freedom to choose one partner or many... not because they're "in charge" but because guarantee of paternity is not a vital issue for that society.

Um...yes and no. I'd say it's more about competition for resources than guarantee of paternity, but both ultimately amount to the same thing as the former necessitates the latter, so no argument from me.

[CaptainHaplo]

The first problem is that "Marriage" isn't a federal issue. Its a civil issue between the people involved. It doesn't concern you or me or joe and jane smith down the street unless we are the ones getting married, and it only concerns federal entities because they want to have as much ability as they can to weasel their way into your wallet or pocketbook.

Personally - I think "gay marriage" is a crock - both on a moral level and as a legal issue. However, the reality of the fact is that its not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on anyone. What two (adult, consenting) people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is the business of no one else.

Yet the reality is that there is nothing stopping a gay couple from drawing up a civil contract that equates (in rights and responsibilities) to marriage. Yet they CHOOSE not to do this. Why? Because they want to change society - make society conform to their views. Which is just as bad as the majority seeking to require them to conform to the majority view.

This is not about "equal rights" and never has been. Its about changing the moral and societal structure of civilization.

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion. No "traditional", mainstream religion supports homosexuality. Thus, to try to state that something is a marriage when the foundations of the word say it cannot be - is nothing mroe than an attempt to seperate the action with its root. In essence - cutting down the tree that has been one of the pillars of society for eons.

There is no "good" answer on this question - but the best one out there is to leave it as a states rights issue - but that would require a change in the Full Faith and Credit laws as well.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The first problem is that "Marriage" isn't a federal issue. Its a civil issue between the people involved. It doesn't concern you or me or joe and jane smith down the street unless we are the ones getting married,

Correct.

and it only concerns federal entities because they want to have as much ability as they can to weasel their way into your wallet or pocketbook.

and also because it's a legal standing that's recognized under law.

Personally - I think "gay marriage" is a crock - both on a moral level and as a legal issue. However, the reality of the fact is that its not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on anyone. What two (adult, consenting) people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is the business of no one else.

You are absolutely correct.

Yet the reality is that there is nothing stopping a gay couple from drawing up a civil contract that equates (in rights and responsibilities) to marriage.

Except for the fact that many states will not recognize the validity of that contract

Yet they CHOOSE not to do this. Why? Because they want to change society - make society conform to their views.

When a citizen's rights are being abridged then yes society should change.

Which is just as bad as the majority seeking to require them to conform to the majority view.

The minority is taking no rights away from the majority if gay marriage is recognized, so this is irrelevant.

This is not about "equal rights" and never has been.

Yes it is.

Its about changing the moral and societal structure of civilization.

To give a group of citizens the same right to marry whom they're romantically attached to as everyone else enjoys. Yes, society should change. Also, your morals are irrelevant. We've been over this.

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion. No "traditional", mainstream religion supports homosexuality.

Completely irrelevant as government is secular.

Thus, to try to state that something is a marriage when the foundations of the word say it cannot be - is nothing mroe than an attempt to seperate the action with its root. In essence - cutting down the tree that has been one of the pillars of society for eons.

So annul the marriage of every atheist or agnostic because they don't buy into your "marriage is a religious thing" argument. Unless you're grasping at straws to find an argument against gay marriage.

There is no "good" answer on this question - but the best one out there is to leave it as a states rights issue - but that would require a change in the Full Faith and Credit laws as well.

14th Amendment very clearly says it's not a state's right issue: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right - that is why states are attempting to Constitutionally define it, whether you agree with it or not.

Please define "Constitutional right".

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion.

On that I have to disagree. There is ample evidence that people were getting married long before any church got involved, and that marriage wasn't originally considered sacred but necessary.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right

SCOTUS disagrees:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Meaning that it's innate and doesn't need to be granted to us by the Constitution. What the states are trying to do is restrict and deprive humans of their innate rights - and why those laws will ultimately be struck down.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

SCOTUS disagrees:

But they have a long history of perverting what the Constitution really means.

On that I have to disagree. There is ample evidence that people were getting married long before any church got involved, and that marriage wasn't originally considered sacred but necessary.

Yep Marriage was basicly a business contract.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yep Marriage was basicly a business contract.

With benefits.

For awhile at least.

[HundertzehnGustav]

so. now you rat rse barfstages mad me read this entire thread.
my moment to say sumpting.

good on yall folks with an open mind on the subject. I am with ya. let them "marry" on a legal level

good on ya folks with a more classic mindset on the subject. i am with ya. gays and lesbians --> maried??? give me hair standing up in my neck. it just seems weird to me.

entertaining discussion, reading this me, but taught me a few new popints of View

Thank you, all involved.