Gay Marriage - The War for Equality (page 2)

BurnTheShips

Ta-da! A solution that everybody should be happy with. So why is nobody fighting for that?

Because--either explicitly or implicitly--everyone wants Statist backing for their faction. BTS

scotsman

Ta-da! A solution that everybody should be happy with. So why is nobody fighting for that?

Lead the way FD & BTS! But as I guess there would be even stiffer opposition to your proposal, then fighting for samesex marriage is a little easier.

truthseeker

I think you have to be clear and define what equality is:

e·qual·i·ty alt Audio Help / ?'kw?l alt ? alt ti / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation [ i-kwol-i-tee ] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -ties.

1.	the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

2.	uniform character, as of motion or surface.

3.	Mathematics . a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.

Two married men, by the defintion of equality cannot be the same as two married women or a married heterosexual couple.

truthseeker

I'm having trouble with formatting - seems when I cut and paste it generates errors when posting.

Just using the definition above, to be truly equal everyone would have to be of the same sex or genderless.

Is changing the definition of marriage to include gay relationships considered "redefining" marriage? Yes. Don't pretend that marriage has always been the same and never has been redefined. The old English common law essentially made marriage into an arrangement where the man had all the rights to make decisions for the woman. In a way, a woman getting married gave up her individual rights. Do we still define marriage in that way? No. It has been redefined.

As it should be for gay people. There's not logical reason why gay people should be denied the same right as straight people to engage in a legally binding relationship.

As society changes, society's institutions change with it. The "traditional values" folks like to pretend that their way has ALWAYS been the right way, when really they only like to say that things were perfect at some specific period of time when they think that life was ideal and nothing was bad. That sort of thinking is mythical. Society constantly changes and these people just don't like change. Someone is "Moving Their Cheese," to reference a popular book on dealing with change.

Some say that we want "extra" or "special" rights. Nope. We just want EQUAL rights. The same rights as everyone else.

jstalin

Two married men, by the defintion of equality cannot be the same as two married women or a married heterosexual couple.

Equality under the law.

truthseeker

Marriage has traditionally always been between a man and a woman but changes have been made over time for marriage to comply with the law.

Consider Fleet marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Marriage

A Fleet Marriage is the best-known example of an irregular or a clandestine marriage taking place in England before the Marriage Act 1753 came into force on March 25th, 1754. Specifically, it was one which took place in London's Fleet Prison during the 17th and, especially, the early 18th century.

Under English law a marriage was recognized as valid if each spouse had simply expressed (to each other) an unconditional consent to their marriage.

An "irregular marriage" was one taking place away from the home parish of the spouses (but after banns or licence); or taking place at an improper time. "Clandestine" marriages were those that have an element of secrect to them: perhaps where they took place away from a home parish, and without either banns or marriage licence. The secrecy might be for many reasons: no parental consent; or where bigamy was involved are two. The facts that fees were involved meant that many clergymen were willing to conduct such marriage ceremonies.

--------

The Hardwicke Act of 1753 changed this so that marriages could only be performed by the calling of the Banns (3 Sundays an announcement was made of an impending marriage) or by applying for a licence which involved appearing in court to sign a marriage allegation. A licence would then be issued.

Over time the legal minimum age for men and women changed, so you could say that marriage had changed, but marriage as an institution was not changed.

hamilcarr

Same-sex marriages apparently predate the christian redefinition of marriage.

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [9] The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. [10] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. [11]

Shazard

jastlin, So the bottomline is, that who has right to change society? I guess only legitimate righs comes from society itself. Society are individuals, decision making individuals. Each of them has rights to redefine society they are part of. You can propose some changes in the society, I have proposals too, you can oppose my proposals, I can oppose your proposals in the lawful rightfull order which is pretty nicely defined in our society and culture.
pro-gay-rigth ppl use faulty logic, they say, that gay ppl are denied some rights which they kind a allready have. Nope, they don't have the rights and never had them. So the position to gain righst should not be that they allready have the rights, and we denie them. They don't have rights, and we only do not want to give them just because they want them. Why should we give them the rights when they are not able to performe the very duties rights implies? Traditional mariage has their rights coz they need the rights to performe the duties. Society does not pay to family to grow society members. They have to do it on their own, sharing THERI resources, wasting THEIR resources to grow YOUR society members. So that's why they are granted other benefits and privilleges, so to balance their duties and resource wasting to motivate actually grow new ppl, so society can get going forward. Now you want the same RIGHTS and PRIVILLEGES grant to the ppl who are UNABLE biologically to reproduce the society. So society want to grant some Society Resoures to couples which can't give anything back to the Society... so Society is making actual suicide as society.
NOW... if you GIVE the rights to gays, then you have to PAY extra for heterosexual couples to motivate them to reproduce society members. Otherway why should I waste MY resources for YOUR benefits?

BurnTheShips

NOW... if you GIVE the rights to gays, then you have to PAY extra for heterosexual couples to motivate them to reproduce society members. Otherway why should I waste MY resources for YOUR benefits?

No heterosexual unions=no future humanity.

Traditional marriage bears fruit in new life. It also provides the perfect environment for raising that new life to be a productive contribution to the whole. It is an affirmation, and a sacrifice.

Homosexual marriage bears no fruit. It is sterile.

BTS

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

Share this