Drama Over Obama Inaugural Prayer

[Pangloss]

Well I don't think they ever really did, exactly. It was ignored for a long time but eventually became one of the big hot-button topics of the 19th century, and in the end the Mormons abandoned the practice in order to bring mormonism closer to the mainstream of American society.

 

The funky thing about it is that it's actually declared illegal at all. If the underlying premise of marriage is a state-licensed contract, then you would think that the government would simply say no. In fact those polygamists who exist today do so under private arrangement, telling others to mind their own business. Does society care if a man "shacks up" with multiple women? Not really. But what exactly is the difference? It seems to come down to things like shared bank accounts and responsibility for children. But those things are already governed by other laws -- a polygamist without a marriage contract can't exert legal authority over a child without going to court and fighting a lot of other battles based on parenthood, etc. Their private arrangement got them nothing in the eyes of the law, so what difference does it make if they saw themselves as married or not?

 

The point being that having a law against polygamy is actually about attacking polygamy where it exists outside of an official state marriage license. In other words, finding people who THINK of themselves as married and throwing them in jail! That would seem to be a contradiction -- an hypocrisy -- given that we don't seem to care if they simply call it something else.

 

And if the purpose of the law was protecting women, how is it accomplishing that above and beyond the other laws that do so?

 

Aspects of this problem that seem to make sense to most folks, at least in general terms:

- Prohibiting sex with a minor child (with the actual age of consent varying either by the individual's maturity level or by cultural preferences, with the agreed-upon age generally falling in at least the mid-to-late teens)

- Prohibiting non-consented sex under all circumstances

- Prohibiting abuse of a spouse, either physically or psychologically

- Prohibiting the use of force or social pressure in creating a cohabitation arrangement

- Allowing people to generally cohabitate with people of their choosing, subsequent to the above points (and perhaps others I may not be thinking of at the moment)

 

Beyond that things start to get a little sticky. So perhaps rather than prohibiting polygamy per se, it would make more sense to ensure that the above conditions are properly addressed and then take our nosey selves out of the bedroom.

 

And I think all of this applies more or less directly to gay marriage. Why not? The concerns are the same.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

I think I'm done arguing the gay marriage thing for the time being, as nobody on the opposition seems to be putting a whole lot of effort into their responses or arguments, and everything I've seen since my previous post really doesn't warrant my attention. So, I return you now to your regularly scheduled program...

 

 

Turns out Warren is a creationist who does not believe in evolution and thinks humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Yet another reason his special brand of brainwashing love should be ostracized welcomed at the inauguration.

 

 

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2008/12/24/rick-warren-the-serpent-who-believes-in-dinosaurs/

"The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty...man and dinosaurs lived at the same time...From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs." <

more at the link

>

 

 

 

h/t PZ

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe a stupid question in all of this scholarly debate, but if marriage was originally intended as between one man and one woman, how did the Mormons and others ever get away with polygamous marriages?

 

They had one marriage for each wife -- each marriage was still between one man and one woman. At least I think that is how it is done. Normally, in a polygamous situation, the wives are taken at different times, so there would be a marriage for each of them. I don't know what would happen if someone wanted to marry two women at the same time.

 

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2008/12/24/rick-warren-the-serpent-who-believes-in-dinosaurs/

"The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty...man and dinosaurs lived at the same time...From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs." <

more at the link

>

 

The above is 100% true -- I don't understand what problem you have with a true statement like that.:confused:

Edited December 26, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged

[iNow]

So, you agree that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Very interesting, Mr Skeptic. Very telling, really.

 

What about Rick Warren's other quote in that piece, regarding how he used to believe that god created through evolution, but once he'd spent more time with those who had studied the bible much longer than he had he realized that the two can't work together (and since he still believes in god as creator, you do the math and see which idea he must reject to resolve this apparent discrepancy).

 

Really, Mr Skeptic, if you can't see the problem with this, then you are part of it.

 

 

Btw - I notice that you have still failed to support your previous position. That's really quite fascinating, too.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, you agree that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Very interesting, Mr Skeptic. Very telling, really.

 

What about Rick Warren's other quote in that piece, regarding how he used to believe that god created through evolution, but once he'd spent more time with those who had studied the bible much longer than he had he realized that the two can't work together (and since he still believes in god as creator, you do the math and see which idea he must reject to resolve this apparent discrepancy).

 

No, I agree that that is how the Bible pictures it. (While someone from the Jewish religion could say it is figurative, without Adam the New Testament is baseless or nearly so.)

 

If I said that Medieval people pictured the Earth as flat and that you could fall off the edge of it, would you also accuse me of saying the Earth is flat?

 

Btw - I notice that you have still failed to support your previous position. That's really quite fascinating, too.

 

As did you. Though at least you now clarify that it was only opinion... However, when opinions meet facts, the facts are the more important. So if you have an opinion of the facts, it still seems that you ought to support it rather than keep asking everyone else to let you keep it unless they can prove you wrong.

[Sisyphus]

There are no dinosaurs in the Bible...

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic: "The original meaning of the laws is marriage between one man and one woman."

 

iNow: "Can you prove this? Perhaps quote a legal text or the actual laws themselves to support that position?"

 

Mr Skeptic: "No, the burden of proof is on you since you want to change the original definition."

 

iNow: "WTF? I asked you to support a comment you made, specifically that the original defintion is what you said it was. Can you do this? The part you asked ME to support was an opinion in response to Pangloss."

 

Mr Skeptic: "I see you have clarified that you are arguing only an opinion. Facts are more important. People are less rational when they feel strongly... blah blah blah."

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

I challenge your assertion that the original meaning of the laws restricts marriage to one man and one woman. Will you support this assertion, or again try side stepping?

[Pangloss]

I thought you were done with this?

[Mr Skeptic]

This is how I see it.

 

iNow: "There are no constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage"

Mr Skeptic: "Um, yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman, so that gay marriage is an oxymoron."

iNow: "Prove it!"

Mr Skeptic: "Um, unless you can disprove it, then I just debunked your statement."

iNow: "That was opinion. And the burden of proof is on you!"

 

However, I do not take kindly to people who's opinions contradict the facts. I would be equally offended by someone claiming that massive particles can move at the speed of light.

 

For extra irony points, you are intolerant and biased against of the same people you accuse of being intolerant and biased.

[iNow]

Mr Skeptic: "Um, yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman"

 

Exactly when and where was this established as a fact? This has been my whole point these past several posts.

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

The above is 100% true -- I don't understand what problem you have with a true statement like that.

 

There are no dinosaurs in the Bible...

 

Lol. Yeah, there's always that.

Edited December 27, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

There are no dinosaurs in the Bible...

 

Dinosaurs are land, sea, and air animals, so they are mentioned, as far as what I said. Also Behemoth and Leviathan seem like dinosaurs, so they might be mentioned directly as well as indirectly as well. But let's try not to get too far off topic.

[Pangloss]

Mr Skeptic: "Um' date=' yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman, so that gay marriage is an oxymoron."

iNow: "Prove it!"[/quote']

 

Exactly when and where was this established as a fact? This has been my whole point these past several posts.

 

iNow he doesn't have to establish that marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman -- that's the status quo. And Mr. Skeptic, there is a legitimate question here aside from the status quo that deserves an answer.

 

You two need to stop fighting over semantics. It does NOT enlighten other people about this issue -- it ONLY makes you both look frothy at the mouth. Make your arguments clear, don't spin each other or hide behind rhetoric, and remember that you're talking to people who haven't made up their minds yet, not circumcising philistines.

[iNow]

Make your arguments clear

 

If you'd be willing to point out which part of my argument you find unclear, I'd be willing to take steps to clarify it.

 

I also almost want to ask you where exactly you think I've been "frothing at the mouth," but that would be more just for personal entertainment and wouldn't really help us to remain focused on the subject.

 

 

Let me know where you find my points unclear and I will work with you to ameliorate that confusion.

Edited December 27, 2008 by iNow
spl

[Reaper]

You two need to stop fighting over semantics. It does NOT enlighten other people about this issue -- it ONLY makes you both look frothy at the mouth. Make your arguments clear, don't spin each other or hide behind rhetoric, and remember that you're talking to people who haven't made up their minds yet, not circumcising philistines.

 

Oh, Pangloss, you know better than to argue with a bunch of idiots .

 

Given the statements that have been flying around here for the past 4 pages or so, I'm surprised that some of them even know how to operate a keyboard properly...

[Pangloss]

If you'd be willing to point out which part of my argument you find unclear, I'd be willing to take steps to clarify it.

 

I also almost want to ask you where exactly you think I've been "frothing at the mouth," but that would be more just for personal entertainment and wouldn't really help us to remain focused on the subject.

 

Let me know where you find my points unclear and I will work with you to ameliorate that confusion.

 

iNow, when you misinterpret another person's argument (even if it's not deliberate) it makes your own argument less clear. In this case, when Mr Skeptic made a point about the current status of gay marriage (pointing out that they cannot currently get married), and you responded by saying that that has not been proven (when what you really meant was that his earlier point that there's a legal basis for them not being allowed to marry has not been proven), the result is muddy waters -- it makes it harder for people to track what either side was trying to say. It leads to 20 pages of roundabout instead of 2 or 3 posts of concise, clear, intelligent discourse. Make sense?

 

I feel confident that you can do a better job in this discussion with Mr Skeptic.

[Mokele]

Dinosaurs are land, sea, and air animals, so they are mentioned, as far as what I said. Also Behemoth and Leviathan seem like dinosaurs, so they might be mentioned directly as well as indirectly as well. But let's try not to get too far off topic.

 

I know it's OT and I said I wouldn't reply in this thread, but I must correct this: dinosaurs were strictly terrestrial, with the exception of those on their way to becoming birds. Pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and the other giant reptiles of the Mesozoic weren't actually dinosaurs, just other reptiles of various sorts (pterosaurs are thought to be quite close to dinosaurs, but plesiosaurs aren't, and mosasaurs appear to have evolved from proto-monitor-lizards).

 

Basically, unless it walked on land and/or had feathers, it's not a dinosaur.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

iNow, when you misinterpret another person's argument (even if it's not deliberate) it makes your own argument less clear.

"The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth...."

The above is 100% true -- I don't understand what problem you have with a true statement like that.:confused:

 

So' date=' you agree that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Very interesting, Mr Skeptic. Very telling, really.[/quote']

I agree with Pangloss on this, iNow. This was bad form, old boy. How could you possibly misinterpret the "100% true"?

[iNow]

iNow, when you misinterpret another person's argument (even if it's not deliberate) it makes your own argument less clear. In this case, when Mr Skeptic made a point about the current status of gay marriage (pointing out that they cannot currently get married), and you responded by saying that that has not been proven

Okay, thanks for that. I think I may see the source of confusion. In my estimation, Mr Skeptics point was actually about the original meaning of the laws, and that when they were written they applied only to one man and one woman (at the express exclusion of same sex couples).

 

You describe Mr Skeptics position differently. You suggest that his point is about the "current status of gay marriage." This is not how I read his words, since his argument assumes that we are trying to "redefine marriage." This is evidenced when he says:

 

 

How about, "I know, we can eliminate discrimination against black people by calling them white."? If the government had redefined black people as white, then it wouldn't have needed the new amendment to grant them equal rights. This is what the current pro-gay movement is trying to do -- not grant them equal rights by law, but redefine them so they have equal rights under existing laws.

 

<...>

 

does anyone have an example where a law has been changed by a fundamental change in definition? What about by a minor change in definition?

For example, the one that gay marriage is an oxymoron, and the one that "marriage" as meant in the law did not include gay marriage.

This is how I see it.

 

iNow: "There are no constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage"

Mr Skeptic: "Um, yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman, so that gay marriage is an oxymoron."

In some places it is, or was. And marriage as traditionally defined in our society does not include same sex marriage, so there is no reason that the laws about heterosexual marriage should apply to homosexual marriage either, and good reason they shouldn't. You don't change laws by redefining words, you change laws by the legislative process.

 

 

So, I've been arguing for him to prove that the original definion was, in fact, what he says it was. You have also now at least twice reinforced my request to Mr Skeptic by asking for an answer yourself, yet he still has failed to supply evidence that this definition ever existed. I would very much like to see the legal documents and text of the laws which dictates that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I think it's not unreasonable of me to ask for this support since it's such a cornerstone of his position.

 

He continually asserts that gay marriage is an oxymoron, but he has yet to demonstrate that the laws were ever defined in the way he suggests they were. This is the point I've been challenging, as it does not appear, as you suggest, that his position is isolated to current laws, nor about laws like Prop 8 or DOMA.

 

 

 

Also, just in case he was talking about current laws (I really don't think he was, but just in case), that position is also bunk.

 

Since his arguments were not specific to locale, I must assume (again, if this was even his original point) that he refers to the nation as a whole (as all of my arguments have been formed at the federal level, it would make sense that his replies would be set in the same context).

 

When viewed in terms of the entire nation, there are currently two states that recognize same-sex marriages, and a total of seven (plus the District of Columbia) that recognize some form of same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hence, that point is incorrect as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

 

However, as I mentioned above, I am relatively confident that he was asserting that the original meaning and the existing text of the laws when drafted prohibited same sex couples from being married, and I would like to see the exact text of any laws which he feels supports this argument.

 

Until then, he may as well be asserting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns, because he's not backed it up, and has assumed it to be a fact without any supporting evidence or documentation.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Pangloss seemed to grasp the root of what I was saying when he posted the following:

 

Well setting aside the obvious effort to ridicule the opposition, I think he's asking a reasonable question, which is whether tradition, predisposition and precedent is the only valid legal argument that should be allowed on this issue.

 

Put another way, is it legally reasonable for individuals to go before a judge and ask for a marriage that doesn't fall under the narrow conditions of "man and woman", and if not, why not?

 

Or are we all agreed at this point that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that the reason it's not allowed is pretty much a matter of judicial interpretation in the favor of conservatives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

I agree with Pangloss on this, iNow. This was bad form, old boy. How could you possibly misinterpret the "100% true"?

 

That's fair. I misrepresented Mr Skeptics position on the dinosaurs thing. I retract that interpretation, and apologize. I'd like to continue focussing on the root issue of gay marriage anyway (since it wasn't the dinosaur thing that Pangloss asked me to clarify). I hope the clarification I just offered moves us forward.

Edited December 27, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[jackson33]

Those of you looking for historical 'cause/effects' of homosexuality are not looking in the right place. Simply its under 'sodomy' and well documented through history. There have been societies based on sodomy, but for the most part society has always frowned on such activity.

 

There are no laws in the US, forbidding ANY CHURCH, its pastor (or whatever) to perform a ceremony for gays/lesbians to equal that of heterosexual couples or in fact are their ANY LAWS to prevent any other person or business from accepting that unions meaning. The question is governments sanctioning such unions, which in large remains objectionable to the majority, even where is currently legal. There are no doubt thousands of 'same sex couples, living in every US State, married by a church in that State and not living in some closet. Your welcome to 'google' where same sex couples can be married, find not inly specific churches but how to become a legal performer of such marriages. Hint; Indian Reservations are not subject to many US law and deeply involved in what I believe to be a scam.

 

Marriage is and has been primarily a religious act or ceremony and is written about in ALL religious text dating back to where the Old Testament was taken from(2500BC). Same Sex Marriage could not have been mentioned for two reasons; Sodomy was itself illegal or before laws unacceptable, certainly to religious leaders over time. Women until very recently were not 'equals' in any sense of the word having no specific rights even to choice of a mate. This in fact remains the dominant opinion of most religions today.

 

Since this thread is based on 'Obama's' dealing with the issue and very hard for me to agree with the man on any issue, in this case I believe he is correct. It's a State issue or an issue betweens individuals. In having two clergy members diabolically opposed to the others, can only serve to bring the issue to the attention of all Americans. As mentioned several times, there should be a consistency to LAW. In the US, laws are and have been lining up to give 'same sex' equal status to 'one each'. IMO, it seems counter productive to recognize the rights to raise children in a 'same sex' home', giving them the equal rights to certain government programs, then deny those same people other rights. This then to me is where the discussion will go and the US SC or Congress itself will HAVE to set US Government policy on the issue.

 

One other misconception (IMO) has been the notion the US was NOT formed under and by VERY RELIGIOUS individuals. In fact they were and the majority of people coming here were for that very reason. The founders WERE opposed to mandating personal beliefs on the people and mentioned often in their arguments. Additionally it was their belief and maintained to this day, that Government should not be involved in any religious activity, nor any of the customary traditions practiced in those days. In fact Congress and government operated on December 25th, like any other weekday well into the 19th Century. It is said 80% of the US populace today believes in a God and the vast majority in Jesus as their messiah and no President has ever been elected (through legislative or popular vote of electors) that was agnostic of an atheist.

[Pangloss]

Well you're welcome to your opinion but I don't think it answers the question before us. Just because I'm married to my wife doesn't mean that we're doing anything illegal, so the first point seems irrelevant and is already covered under separate law (however misguided it may be). And a religious wedding doesn't get you the equal protection and rights that a state-enforced contract provide.

 

And the last paragraph is a different subject and not a justification for anything related to this issue. Don't change the subject.

 

In short, you haven't really addressed the issue at all, jackson33.

[jackson33]

Well you're welcome to your opinion but I don't think it answers the question before us. Just because I'm married to my wife doesn't mean that we're doing anything illegal, so the first point seems irrelevant and is already covered under separate law (however misguided it may be). And a religious wedding doesn't get you the equal protection and rights that a state-enforced contract provide.

 

And the last paragraph is a different subject and not a justification for anything related to this issue. Don't change the subject.

 

In short, you haven't really addressed the issue at all, jackson33.

 

First ALL people, have equal protection under the law, today. Married or not, gay, straight or even those accused of criminal activity. As for 'my point', it seems to me you all are going back and forth arguing historic Gay attitudes, when in fact there was no possible mention of the lifestyle, under that meaning. Think my point quite clear...

 

As for my added point that Gays can already marry, under sanction from some church, should be the total reality of the issue. It apparently is not, is an attempt to gain 'ACCEPTANCE' or some benefit, which indeed your certificate is a government contract for those specific privileges, few that they are.

 

As for my 'last paragraph'; This was a pre-emptive move to off set the usual argument the US is some how formed as an atheist State and/or should not be concerned with theological reasoning. The people it was intended to know well how it relates, and will add it involves the topic issue...Obama/Warren relationship. IMO...

[Pangloss]

But you haven't addressed the issue of equality; you're actually ignoring it. You state that they have equal protection under law, and yet in this thread it's been demonstrated that they do not. The government certificate/contract allows non-gays access to protected advantages/benefits that gays do not have access to -- they don't enjoy that protection. How do you explain that discrepancy?

[Mr Skeptic]

He continually asserts that gay marriage is an oxymoron, but he has yet to demonstrate that the laws were ever defined in the way he suggests they were. This is the point I've been challenging, as it does not appear, as you suggest, that his position is isolated to current laws, nor about laws like Prop 8 or DOMA.

 

And you have been continually asserting things including, but not limited to the following:

"Purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns" is either not secular, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage, and

"The moon is made of green cheese" is either not secular, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage, and

"Marriage means between a man and a woman" is either not secular, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage, and

...

 

Of the infinite assertions he made (he did, after all, say "all"), whenever I challenged one of them, he claims I'm the one making a statement (rather than challenging one of the infinite statements he made), and that the burden of proof is on me to disprove him rather than on him to prove what he said.

 

Just to show that the claim that gay marriage is between a man and a woman is not completely baseless, I'll offer the following:

The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)

marriage

 

→ noun

1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: she has three children from a previous marriage.

 

• [mass noun] the state of being married: women want equality in marriage.

2. a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop.

 

 

 

by marriage as a result of a marriage.

 

in marriage as husband or wife: he asked my father for my hand in marriage.

 

- ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry’.

 

How to cite this entry:

"marriage noun" The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Jamestown Community College. 28 December 2008 <

http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e46789>

though to be honest I expected a bit more from the Oxford Dictionary, especially an "exclusive" version.

 

Edit: Oh, I found out why there was so little there. There are other Oxford Dictionaries (including Law, Local and Familiy History, etc), and each of them has a pageful or more to say. However, I don't think I can copy/paste the whole thing, so I will PM to whoever asks. Here's a portion of some:

A Dictionary of Sociology

marriage Marriage is traditionally conceived to be a legally recognized relationship, between an adult male and female, that carries certain rights and obligations. However, in contemporary societies, marriage is sometimes interpreted more liberally and the phrase ‘living as married’ indicates that for many purposes it makes no sense to exclude cohabitation. It should be noted, however, that even this more liberal definition usually excludes homosexual couples. Although cohabitation is increasingly accepted, and is now the normal prelude to marriage, people continue to make a distinction between living together and a ‘proper’ wedding and marriage.

 

The Oxford Companion to American Law

Same-Sex Marriage.

All American states prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. While this bar has been challenged on constitutional grounds a number of times, only two challenges have succeeded in part. In Baehr v. Lewin (1993), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that statutes that prevent a person from marrying someone of the same sex might violate the state constitution. While the case was still in the courts, however, the Hawaii legislature proposed an amendment to the state constitution to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, but also enacted a law allowing couples ineligible to marry to register as reciprocal beneficiaries and to receive many of the benefits formerly available only to married couples. In State v. Baker (1999), the Vermont Supreme Court held that the state constitution required that same-sex couples have access to the same benefits under state law that married couples have. In response, the state legislature enacted a civil union law that gives same-sex couples the same rights as married couples but does not allow them to marry formal (see homosexuality and the law).

 

Oxford Dictionary of Law

marriage n. 1. The relationship between husband and wife.

 

2. A ceremony, civil or religious, that creates the legal status of husband and wife and the legal obligations arising from that status (see marriage ceremony). All marriages must be registered by an authorized marriage registrar. The minimum age for marriage is 16 with parental consent (18 without), and capacity to marry in general is governed by the law of domicile of both parties before the marriage. Relationships within which marriage is prohibited are specified in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 (see prohibited degrees of relationships). Parties to a marriage must be respectively male and female (see civil partnership; gender reassignment), must not be already married to someone else (see bigamy; polygamy), and must enter into the marriage freely. See also marriage by certificate.

 

iNow, as I said, one of the best bits of evidence against "marriage" including same-sex couples is the lack of evidence to the contrary. If someone said that "marriage" meant "leprechaun farts", you won't find anything to disprove that, only a vast absence of evidence in support of it. However, the above goes a bit further by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not from the proper time, but it does suggest that this is how it was back then as well.

 

Still, unless you want to retract the infinite set of statements you made, it is up to you to prove them. If of all of those, you can prove the one about marriage, I'll bow before your greatness. In the meantime...

Edited December 28, 2008 by Mr Skeptic

[iNow]

Just to show that the claim that gay marriage is between a man and a woman is not completely baseless, I'll offer the following:

 

.

The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)

A Dictionary of Sociology

The Oxford Companion to American Law

[Entry for same sex marriage

]

Oxford Dictionary of Law

 

I was not asking you to demonstrate what the dictionary said, I was asking you to demonstrate what the laws said, specific text within the laws which support your assertion that they were written to exclude same sex marriage. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp, but I do, however, understand why it's so hard for you to support <hint>.

 

 

(Also, since when is gay marriage between a man and a woman? I think that's very baseless. I know it was just a typo on your part, but it's still pretty funny. )

 

 

iNow, as I said, one of the best bits of evidence against "marriage" including same-sex couples is the lack of evidence to the contrary.

You were not asked to demonstrate that there were gay marriages back then, you were asked to cite the specific text in the laws regarding marriage.

 

 

However, the above goes a bit further by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not from the proper time, but it does suggest that this is how it was back then as well.

So, not only have you cited a dictionary to support your point about the text of the laws (instead of the laws themselves), but you concede that the dictionaries you used were not even from the correct time period. I wonder if anyone else sees this argument as unacceptable as I do.

 

Let's see the text of the law which supports your position that they are intended to only apply to one man and one woman.

 

 

Still, unless you want to retract the infinite set of statements you made, it is up to you to prove them. If of all of those, you can prove the one about marriage, I'll bow before your greatness. In the meantime...

Edited December 28, 2008 by iNow

[jackson33]

But you haven't addressed the issue of equality; you're actually ignoring it. You state that they have equal protection under law, and yet in this thread it's been demonstrated that they do not. The government certificate/contract allows non-gays access to protected advantages/benefits that gays do not have access to -- they don't enjoy that protection. How do you explain that discrepancy?

 

 

When you visit the local Courthouse and obtain a license, to marry, drive a car, build something or keep some pet, your taking ON responsibility certainly over any beneficial factors. Marriage happens to be one license, no longer required by any government entity and a good many have or choose not to obtain, UNLESS they have some religious or traditional reasoning behind the move. Cohabitation of individuals, two or more and with any make up are as common as day and night. People live together for a variety of reason, not always sexual in nature. All those people, regardless of reasoning or the motives involved are individually protected under the same laws. Think about 20 States have inserted some 'common law' to add certain protection to co-habitations over a prescribed time and give those added obligations to both parties, under the current State Sanctioned marriage laws. Don't confuse some of these laws which involve a third party (children) and are directed at any person, as their responsibility.

 

The one major added RESPONSIBILITY, I have seen listed is the guardian responsibility under the Marriage License. Both parties, then become the first person responsible for the others, for decisions if the other is somehow incapacitated. Pre-nuptial agreements or contracts can nullify that obligation and most others or in fact can make non certified unions equal to those and other responsibilities. In my opinion, then no person is treated any different in any union, regardless of conditions, unless they are ignorant or unaware of their rights. The same is true for those in certified marriage and not understanding the responsibilities.

 

Aside from all this; We are a nation of laws...No law treats every person the same, NONE. A person in one State can do many things, that in another State are punishable in another and if you take this to sentencing the differences can be extensive. Our Federal System can set guidelines for all States and set standards for benefits however they please. SS for instance, awards the estate of a deceased a death benefit and the State determines who is in charge of that estate. If an employed person is in a recognized union, for 9 years 11 months and twenty nine days, the surviving partner is entitled to nothing under law and if 10 years (40 quarters) they are eligible for survivors befits. The two friends (sex not the issue) or siblings that cohabitate in a deceased parents home or all those unions never recorded are no more qualified for those benefits than 'same sex' partners and in this case, my point to how laws work....

 

The 'Associated Press' broke a story yesterday, apparently in 'News Week', by Janet McConnaughey of two men (not married) but from San Diego, California. These two fellows were granted custody of a new born in 2006, in Louisiana and granted a Birth Certificate for the child in one partners name. They filed suit against the State of Louisiana for joint listing on the Certificate and granted their wishes (two men or dad's). It is expected to be appealed. The request was made to simplify the bread winners claim to keep the infant on his employment Health Care records, as he was the one not listed. Also they had been questioned trying to board a plane, with the baby and could not prove the 'Black' child was indeed in their custody, both being white, or that they had not kidnapped the child.