<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jan 27 2005, 03:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jan 27 2005, 03:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay then why do I constantly see people referring to marriage as a religious (private) institution as justification for barring homosexuals? =\ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> these are the same type of people who wanted to ban dancing because " All that swank, hip moving, pelvic gyratin, arm flailing shenanigans makes BABIES!" or " Elvis is the DEVIL" and even better yet "Burn the book!! Our children are reading about Lions! Witches! and Wardrobes!!!"
Its unfortunate that the goverment has adopted the term "marriage" which now carries with it a strong religous conotation. Ideally, keeping the seperation of Church and State in mind, all the goverment should be granting is acknowledgment of a civil union between two persons, and the benefits therein. It should be up to the church of the person(s) choice to perform and acknowledge any religious ceremonies thereafter.
Right now, homosexuals are being force to "sit in the back of the bus", but SanFransisco wanted to sit up front and that has started the conflict, and now its been brought to everyones attention, and its only a matter of time until enough people become comfortable with the idea, and its another "unfortunate part" of America's past that was "conquered" by its unending tolerance of everyone......
Hopefully, in 50 years, our kids and grandkids will look back, and laugh/be ashsamed of how "pepole could be so ignorant" or "believe something so segregational".
In the end, its boils down to: People fear change and Some people just NEED to agrue/complain. And unfortunately so, religion is a time test, soially approved method to argue just about ANYTHING.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 26 2005, 10:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 26 2005, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it never was a religious institution, duh. You can bet there were marriages long before there were any priests to do the marrying. Like I said before, ever heard of common-law marriages? They've been around forever.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly what do you think "common law" marriage is? It has neither been around forever, nor could it have been around forever. By definition common law marriage is a marriage that the common law -- as opposed to statutory law -- sanctions. In short a common law marriage is a marriage that a state has historically recognized even though a couple hasn't sought an official sanction from the state; e.g., you have lived together for a sufficient time so the state treats you as a married couple.
This is a <i>legal</i> issue. It has not "been around forever." In fact, it isn't even universal amongst the current legal systems of the U.S. states. There are some states that recognize common-law marriage and some that don't. The idea that this is some grand historical trend is simply false. Do you really think that common law marriage was enforced in societies that did not have our system of law? If you have some argument that <i>every</i> society has treated heterosexual couples that live together for a sufficient time as married, then present it. Otherwise, it looks to me as though even our current legal structure doesn't treat the issue in a uniform manner; some states will treat a couple as married and others will not.
do you think there was always legal recognition for marriage? what i meant by common law marriage was 'the state of marriage by the fact that the couple lives together and has made a commitment to each other'. this type of marriage was <i>legally recognized by the state after it[marriage] became institutionalized</i>. that doesn't mean it didn't exist before that.
well as marriage homosexual for we are doing and their is no recognition of the fact promiscuous in marriage so homosexuality became what pedophilia and tantalizing of indescribable lewd and vernacular nderstanding within every human. otherwise peace of aliens incarnated from new breeding will occur with pronounced cloning of psychoactive babies in the form engeonic plants were named after the flesh of the gods; together as one a new alien world and species will form to allow unification of trisexuality; for new genders will have been made.
Comments
these are the same type of people who wanted to ban dancing because " All that swank, hip moving, pelvic gyratin, arm flailing shenanigans makes BABIES!" or " Elvis is the DEVIL" and even better yet "Burn the book!! Our children are reading about Lions! Witches! and Wardrobes!!!"
Its unfortunate that the goverment has adopted the term "marriage" which now carries with it a strong religous conotation. Ideally, keeping the seperation of Church and State in mind, all the goverment should be granting is acknowledgment of a civil union between two persons, and the benefits therein. It should be up to the church of the person(s) choice to perform and acknowledge any religious ceremonies thereafter.
Right now, homosexuals are being force to "sit in the back of the bus", but SanFransisco wanted to sit up front and that has started the conflict, and now its been brought to everyones attention, and its only a matter of time until enough people become comfortable with the idea, and its another "unfortunate part" of America's past that was "conquered" by its unending tolerance of everyone......
Hopefully, in 50 years, our kids and grandkids will look back, and laugh/be ashsamed of how "pepole could be so ignorant" or "believe something so segregational".
In the end, its boils down to:
People fear change
and
Some people just NEED to agrue/complain. And unfortunately so, religion is a time test, soially approved method to argue just about ANYTHING.
Exactly what do you think "common law" marriage is? It has neither been around forever, nor could it have been around forever. By definition common law marriage is a marriage that the common law -- as opposed to statutory law -- sanctions. In short a common law marriage is a marriage that a state has historically recognized even though a couple hasn't sought an official sanction from the state; e.g., you have lived together for a sufficient time so the state treats you as a married couple.
This is a <i>legal</i> issue. It has not "been around forever." In fact, it isn't even universal amongst the current legal systems of the U.S. states. There are some states that recognize common-law marriage and some that don't. The idea that this is some grand historical trend is simply false. Do you really think that common law marriage was enforced in societies that did not have our system of law? If you have some argument that <i>every</i> society has treated heterosexual couples that live together for a sufficient time as married, then present it. Otherwise, it looks to me as though even our current legal structure doesn't treat the issue in a uniform manner; some states will treat a couple as married and others will not.
otherwise peace of aliens incarnated from new breeding will occur with pronounced cloning of psychoactive babies in the form engeonic plants were named after the flesh of the gods; together as one a new alien world and species will form to allow unification of trisexuality; for new genders will have been made.