100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
again marriage is not a 'right' rights are not contingent on familial relationships they are afforded to INDIVIDUALS , not COUPLES It's not that you have trouble getting your point across, it's that you seem to have a problem incorporating facts into your bias. AGAIN, the contract of marriage, as set forth by the government, is only complete when considering the cascading effects of related laws which all have an effect on social connectivity. Couples who wish to marry are seeking 'equality under the law'. There has NEVER been a conditional privilege associated with any legal aspect of marraige which required sex or children. The only law that EVER restricted sex between consenting adults were the state sodomy laws - which proved to be unconstitutional due privacy issues. From that episode we can assume that homosexuals can consumate a marriage because sodemy is a form of sex, according to the law. Please carefully review this information and PLEASE as questions if you do not understand and please review the facts presented with your previous views so that you can stop saying that we don't understand what you are saying. Willful refusal to consummate is the unjustified decision not to consummate a marriage. It is may be grounds for annulment of the marriage. http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/willful-refusal-to-consummate/ Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Consumate: What is completed. A right is said to be initiate when it is not complete; when it is perfected, it is consummated. Consummation: The completion of a thing; such as the consummation of marriage, the consummation of a contract, and the like. Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml Elements for Nullification: The other spouse had another husband or wife living at the time of the marriage; Either spouse was younger than sixteen at the time of the marriage and did not have court approval; Either spouse was sixteen or seventeen at the time of the marriage and did not have parental consent, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage, as long as the annulment action is filed within 60 days after the marriage ceremony; Either spouse was mentally incompetent or unable to consent at the time of the marriage; One of them was threatened or forced to get married; One of them agreed to be married based on fraudulent statements or actions by the other spouse; One of them was physically and incurably impotent at the time of the marriage, unless the other spouse knew about the impotence before the marriage; http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/annulment_laws/index.shtml sex is a LEGALLY EXPECTED part of marriage the government should not make a stand for any reason to LEGaLLY EXPECT homosexual relations take the SEX out of the marriage laws or create another extension that allows the joining of lives LEGALLY with no consideration to sexual relations forcing marriage to remain as is and ADDING same sex relations is FORCING a government SANCTION on same sex sex,,,,,for which there is no reason,,,, First, only one of these state laws deals with sex and as you said, not all states incorporate it. Secondly, the only time this law comes to court in when one or the other party seeks dissolution of marriage because of NO SEX in the relationship. Therefore marriage is only about sex when one or the other of the two people involved WANT to make it about sex. The state simply offers a provision by which ONE or the OTHER partner wants to FAULT the other in order to obtain the dissolution. At one time, at least most, states required that some fault be assigned for the dissolution to take place which is why the consummation provision was there in the first place. Because it was considered the ‘right’ of every individual to have children and is sex was not present a person who wanted his or her own children, obviously, was being denied a right by another person. So again, it had nothing to do with marriage or the marriage contract, it had to do with individual rights that were not compromised in any way by the marriage contract. edited to add: If you want to find a 'legal' avenue to support an opposition to ss-marriage, then you must understand how the legal system works. If you want to find support for a religious concept, then continue to read the biased opinions of others, who ignore the reality of the law. Im pretty sure I have as good an understanding as any. Enough to know that SEX is legally considered a part of marriage, an EXPECTED part,, or else not having it would not be grounds to divorce. as to every person having a 'right' to bare children, that has little to do with it either, because we have established that a citizens value has nothing to do with their ability to create a child,,, unless we are reversing that position, I Think the law is pretty consistent in expecting a marriage to be a SEXUAL relationship because of the 'potential' to have children (even though noone can be barred from marrying because of a PHYSICAL condition that prevents them from childbearing) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So then it's ok for those who want same sex marraige to push those who don't to conform with their guidelines? Only in the same sense that people who didn't want women to vote "had to conform" to allowing women to vote. People who want same sex marriage are seeking to end a form of social injustice. If you don't want same sex marriage, don't get one. The fact that the anti-marriage (of gays) people see this as 'having to conform' just gives evidence to the fact that they think its okay for their prejudice to rule over other peoples personal lives. this is not a good analogy when I vote, it is me in a booth DOING something MYSELF the same SOMETHING that any other INDIVIDUAL citizen can do who is of age AND a citizen getting MARRIED is a procedure that we PARTICIPATE in, it takes at least one other party to agree to do it WITH us and the legal authority to validate ,,voting requires no other party but ME,, that is something I DO getting married, or becoming a partnership or corporation, or any other PROCEDURE That requires agreement between two parties is not something we INDIVIDUALLY 'do' buying a car, for instance, requires a buyer and a seller,,,the paperwork will reflect a TRANSACTION/AGREEMENT between two people, if there is a contract to REGISTER that car, to have it LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as your car, a government authority then validates the contract through a 'registration' I cannot 'buy' a car, just because someone else can 'buy' a car,, this is not a RIGHT, its a contract if someone else can meet the requirements of that contract THEN they can purchase from the buyer the buyer placing a value on his car isnt STOPPING me from buying that car, the fact that I cant or wont meet that value is,,,, the government defining marriage as a man and woman isnt STOPPING anyone from getting married, that fact that they cant or wont meet that definition is,,,, Perhaps interracial marriage would be a better analogy? Yes, people had to accept it when it was made legal. no, that is not a better analogy either because being black is not something I 'do' nor is being white something others 'do' that is something determined by things THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER unlike sexual behavior , which we all have absolute control over, 'race' has no bearing on the creation of more citizens, gender does and sexual behavior does race is not something one comes to a conclusion about after puberty, its something we are DEFINED AS FROM BIRTH by society comparing race to sexual behavior is one of the more ridiculous things I hear in the discussion of 'civil rights' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what you've written it's obvious that you try to find solutions through your religious beliefs and framework...Other people seek solutions based on different sets of beliefs... greeneyes, this is the problem. msharmony is working with one set of beliefs and others on this thread are working with other beliefs. the problem is that msharmony's beliefs include guidelines for marriage that she defends. the other beliefs want msharmony to accept marriage outside of the beliefs she has if a church (or any organization for that matter) has rules, and the members are to follow those rules, and certain privileges come with being a member, than the privileges can only be enjoyed by the members following the rules IMHO others who want the privileges can obey the rules or do without. they shouldn't ask for the privileges and not follow the rules The other issue is that msharmony (or anyone who feels the same as she does) wants everyone else to conform to those guidelines she follows. Most people who are not as religious as her aren't going to conform. I wouldn't have an issue with someone who is following their guidelines and doesn't agree with something like same sex marriage. I do have a problem when they try to push others to conform to those same guidelines. it seems the issue is people who don't believe as she does want her to allow them to benefit from one of the privileges of her beliefs, without them having to follow the rules of her belief And she wants to deny people the ability to do things based on her own beliefs. She wants people to follow her beliefs, even if they aren't religious. I see that as being a problem when people try to deny others based on their own religious beliefs. marriage isnt something I can 'do' or you can 'do' marriage is a LEGAL PROCESS That requires participation of others and a LEGAL documentation and marriage is just a relationship that the GOVERNMENT puts requirements on noone is denying homosexuals the right to 'do' anything they are protesting the insistence that the GOVERNMENT take a part in what they choose to do,,,, Marriage is absolutely something you can do. What you're trying to do is deny that same ability to those you disagree with. what 'ability'? ability to have a relationship? not denied ability to have sex? not denied ability to be committed to each other? not denied ,,what ability that married couples have do unmarried couples not have? The ability to get married. You want some to not have that ability, because you do not agree with how they choose to live their life with a person of the same sex. Sure, they have the ability to have a relationship, sex and to be committed to each other, but you are trying to deny them the ability to actually get married. yep, the same way I want someone denied the ABILITY to obtain a doctors degree without attending school,,,, or the way others want someone denied the ABILITY to marry their sister or father because they do not 'agree' with those types of SEXUAL relationships enough to support the government MANDATING siblings be sexually faithful,, being that they probably shouldnt be laying down together at all... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not go there!  Interacial marriage is not immoral... both races would be human. And the male+female or, heterosexual, marriage between them is natural. And still falls under traditonal marriage. It's still the same premise. People still tried to ban it from happening because they didn't agree with it. You say both races would be human. Well, both sexes would be human, correct? Sorry, but your argument doesn't make them any less similar. still human is not the point we dont just allow all humans to marry teenagers are still human and siblings are still human, but they are still prohibited from marrying because of BIOLOGICAL reasons GENDER is biological, race is social a different animal altoghther,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not go there! Interacial marriage is not immoral... both races would be human. And the male+female or, heterosexual, marriage between them is natural. And still falls under traditonal marriage. It's still the same premise. People still tried to ban it from happening because they didn't agree with it. You say both races would be human. Well, both sexes would be human, correct? Sorry, but your argument doesn't make them any less similar. This is not about humanness it's about morality. If it's against your moral code to have a same sex marriage, don't have one. It's as simple as that. But, to try and deny others the ability to do that simply because you do not agree? That doesn't make any sense. these arguments will never be consistent unless we allow all adults to marry, regardless of ANY OTHER factors once that box is opened, those who use these arguments may see how flawed they are,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should honor the beauty of our humanness by... simply giving ourselves a full frontal examination, then we will see evidence of the purpose for our existence. Our physical structure serves a valuable purpose on the earth for the reproduction and survival of human life. You can claim its a civil rights issue when there are signs on public restrooms saying "heterosexuals only". Storefronts with "No Homosexuals Welcome". When gays are forced to ride in the back of the bus or are threatened with death if they show up at a voting place on election day. Marriage is not a right. and it sure as hell isn't an issue of civil rights. where are the flying pigs,,,??? we agree on something,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/29/12 04:35 PM
|
|
We should honor the beauty of our humanness by... simply giving ourselves a full frontal examination, then we will see evidence of the purpose for our existence. Our physical structure serves a valuable purpose on the earth for the reproduction and survival of human life. You can claim its a civil rights issue when there are signs on public restrooms saying "heterosexuals only". Storefronts with "No Homosexuals Welcome". When gays are forced to ride in the back of the bus or are threatened with death if they show up at a voting place on election day. Marriage is not a right. and it sure as hell isn't an issue of civil rights. Let's hope those kind of things don't happen. The angrier some of these hardcore religious people get, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd try to deny gay people the right to do other things if they thought they could get away with it. lets hope not as someones 'gayness' is not obvious or provable unless they choose to SHARE and CONFIRM it,,,, right now, using male and female has sufficed,,,,, a law saying everyone but BLACKS can do something is a civil rights issue a law saying all men and women (of which most are) can enter together into a legal process is not a civil rights issue it doesnt discriminate, it has one law for all MALES AND FEMALES,, period it just doesnt make a SPECIAL concession for sexual behaviors,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
andrewzooms
on
Wed 08/29/12 05:24 PM
|
|
As a person who is uncomfortable around gays I could care less about this issue. I stopped talking to a girl who had a bunch of gay friends. I choose not to associate with gay people because I do not agree with that lifestyle.
With that being said what is the big fuss about them getting married? Gays where born gay, some of you where born mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/29/12 05:26 PM
|
|
As a person who is uncomfortable around gays I could care less about this issue. I stopped talking to a girl who had a bunch of gay friends. I choose not to associate with gay people because I do not agree with that lifestyle. With that being said what is the big fuss about them getting married? Gays where born gay, some of you where born hateful. we are not 'born' gay or straight we develop a PREFERENCE for certain behaviors, we arent PREDESTINED to engage in them just like I dont hate promiscuous people, although I dont believe promiscuity is helpful or beneficial to anyone in any way and dont feel the government should engage in supporting and encouraging it,, likewise, I dont hate gay people, have many loved ones who live the gay lifestyle and one who lived that way a while and then began living a straight lifestyle and got married (As the law dictates for all male and female citizens) to someone of the opposite sex I dont believe the government should make their choice of lifestyle illegal, nor do I believe the government should sanction or in any way assist in making it an 'expected' activity for any so called 'rights' Im for civil unions which would ONLY apply to actual 'rights' that currently married people have (but not only married people as is often suggested) certain rights are a 'given' for married couples that other couples have other LEGAL Means of obtaining as well but for the sake of compromise, Im all for making those actual 'rights' just as easy for any other consenting adults who feel they would benefit from them,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just reminds me of separate but equal facilities.
Yes gay couple you will get a civil union with numerous benefits but it wont be a marriage. Yes black man you could ride on the train but only this specific boxcar. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CeriseRose
on
Wed 08/29/12 05:34 PM
|
|
singmesweet..What happened to love and compassion and tolerance? I thought these were suppose to be Christian values...These days people pick and choose their scapegoats. It's all about hate and blame and finger-pointing and this is sad...Anger is flying around all over the place. And intimidation and bullying and self-righteousness etc..People didn't usually act this way towards others when I was growing-up. (Back in the 50's and 60's.) Now we live in a "no holes barred" or "anything goes" type of society when it comes to attacking other people or treating others with blatant disrespect...I have witnessed a decline in morality over the decades but I don't try to pin it all on some "scapegoat of the month."...It's a general lack of caring towards others and lack of respect...And maybe people are angrier today (in general) due to the bad economy and the stress of trying to make "ends meet" etc. But it's not right or fair or nice to "dump" on others just because we're having some problems or a "bad hair day."....Politicians and religious leaders definitely know how to capitalize on everyones' anger these days. But the trouble is they try to turn us against each other. It's all about "divide and conquer." Not good!...How do you feel about it?.. There was a lot more unity when I was younger. And "goodwill." Of course there were problems too. (In many parts of the country.) I was lucky because people in my "neck of the woods" tried to live by the "golden rule." If christians didn't care about you they'd leave you to your own destructive devices. Try not to be self-centered. This is not just YOUR society you're flipping. As I mentioned... Down the road, there will be consequences for these indiscriminate notions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/29/12 05:45 PM
|
|
It just reminds me of separate but equal facilities. Yes gay couple you will get a civil union with numerous benefits but it wont be a marriage. Yes black man you could ride on the train but only this specific boxcar. yes, to the naked eye, it looks that simple, yet its not 'black man' would be something people looked at you and labeled you with, that you could very rarely 'hide' or 'blend in', its an ASTHETIC QUALITY out of your control 'black' is a label society gives you from the NURSERY That there is NO CHOICE IN black is not a 'choice' and not something black people have parades several times a year to insist people aknowledge and accept black is not something a black person ever has to 'come out' about,, they simply ARE,, from birth, determined by society to be 'black' and there is a discrepancy if a black MAN cant do something simply because of an ASTHETIC quality he has no control over, that white men can there is no such discrepancy if a male who wishes to engage in sex with males, or a male who wishes to engate in sex with his sister, or a male who wishes to engage in sex with a minor is not permitted to have the LAW sanction a contract that would (by extenstion) expect that behavior to happen,,,,, because there are also no other MALES who can engage in said contract with another who is the same sex, from the same family, or under a certain age see, the marriage laws apply to all MEN equally, the argument is whether there should be a special consideration based upon what MEN have chosen to do sexually,,,,,,(meaning humans) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should honor the beauty of our humanness by... simply giving ourselves a full frontal examination, then we will see evidence of the purpose for our existence. Our physical structure serves a valuable purpose on the earth for the reproduction and survival of human life. You can claim its a civil rights issue when there are signs on public restrooms saying "heterosexuals only". Storefronts with "No Homosexuals Welcome". When gays are forced to ride in the back of the bus or are threatened with death if they show up at a voting place on election day. Marriage is not a right. and it sure as hell isn't an issue of civil rights. Let's hope those kind of things don't happen. The angrier some of these hardcore religious people get, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd try to deny gay people the right to do other things if they thought they could get away with it. "Hardcore religious people"? Who? Dan Cathy? Billy Graham? Do you actually think that gays should have EVERY thing they want? Well, people can't have everything they want. And to try to poison society's minds about christianity to achieve your goals.  People should not try to change an entire nation's morals and laws just so they can have immoral activity legalized. These things have not been fully tested. I believe the future rammifications of these demands being granted WILL someday come back to bite us. Even worse...devour us. How do we retrieve all that we forfeit? Many of you have little regard for the laws of this land. You think it's "all about you". Yourselves know that this whole thing is not about HARDCORE christianity. It's simply about getting what you want regardless of the future consequences. Christaphobia is not as much your motivation as selfish determination. I fear for your children's future. This thread is revealing a lot. Some of you should be grateful that your parents performed a heterosexual act to conceive you. Sure, not all were conceived in the holy bonds of matrimony... because some relationships didn't blossom. Or maybe your parents were not "christians" or they were just dabbling in heterosex. ...but nonetheless, you are here! Congratulations! Oh...and for the record...I sincerely love you all!   In this thread, we aren't talking about everything, we are talking about marriage. So based on that, yes, I think gay people should get to marry if they choose. Actually, from what you write here, you seem to believe it's all about you. I don't think that way. I don't feel I have the right to tell a gay couple they should not be allowed to marry. You do feel that way because of your own beliefs. You are trying to push your beliefs on them, because you disagree with them and want to keep things the way you like and are comfortable with. Why would you feel for my children's future? Should I have children, I would do my best to teach them that racism, homophobia, anti-semitism or any kind of bigotry is not a good thing. There are no excuses for any of those things. Sadly, some people are not raised that way. Yes, this thread is very revealing. I'm surprised by what some have said here. Not sure why my parents' (or anyone's parents') religion has to do with any of this. Not sure why they were even brought up, either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am locking this topic. It has run it's course and too many personal comments are being made.
Kim |
|
|
|
|
