What is marriage?

[Orsorum]

Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious.

 

[bozack]

I don't think the term marriage should have ever been used in a legal context, it was a huge mistake sharing terminology used by religious factions....

the legal aspect for everyone is more of a "union" of two people....

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bozack
I don't think the term marriage should have ever been used in a legal context, it was a huge mistake sharing terminology used by religious factions....

the legal aspect for everyone is more of a "union" of two people....

Then cite me precedent, civil union boy!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack
I don't think the term marriage should have ever been used in a legal context, it was a huge mistake sharing terminology used by religious factions....

the legal aspect for everyone is more of a "union" of two people....

Let's start with the word origin:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry


And, now the definition:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>



Continue.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm">"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."</a>

Good enought for you marriage boy?

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm">"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."</a>

Good enought for you marriage boy?

CkG

hmm....really think the DoMA will hold up?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm">"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."</a>

Good enought for you marriage boy?

CkG

hmm....really think the DoMA will hold up?

"Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious."

CkG

 

[KGB1]

I was really excited about marriage when I was younger. I dreamt of endless hours of sex. Then to be told of the truth really was a major setback.

Marriage == Sham

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Define it for me. Cite legal precedent, either American or foreign, modern or ancient. One catch: it must be legal precedent, not religious.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm">"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."</a>

Good enought for you marriage boy?

CkG

hmm....really think the DoMA will hold up?

Sure, if you want it to be the end of it. Now I want something from a foreign nation that defines marriage. Then something from the 19th century, then the 18th century, then, heaven forbid you're not tuckered out by that time, maybe something from the 17th century.

 

[conjur]

Interesting:

http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html

The Patristic period reveals remarkable diversity in Catholic understandings of marriage. One thing is clear--during this era there was no mandated religious ceremony required for valid marriages. Juridical concerns with regard to marriage were handled exclusively by the state. While consent and blessing of the bishop or presbyter was encouraged (e.g. Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp) there is no evidence that this was a common practice.

Attention was being paid to the theological aspect of the marriage relationship. Many of the Fathers defended marriage against the attacks of the Gnostics and later the Manichaeans. The apologetics, however, focused on procreation as the essential function of sexual relations and marriage. Augustine's justification of marriage in terms of procreation is well-known. Although this was his main emphasis, he also recognized that marriage expressed the social nature of humans. As such, marriage could be seen as a type of spiritual communion. Unfortunately, neither Augustine nor any of the other Fathers saw the connection between these two understandings.

One significant development which occurred in the Middle Ages, was the rise of ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies and legislation. Prior to this period, it was left to civil authorities to legislate marriages. The Church concerned itself with only the moral dimension of the marriage relationship. This changed, in part, because of a clash in traditions regarding matrimony. In the Roman culture, a marriage was legal and binding on the basis of consent between the spouses and their guardians. In the Frankish and Germanic traditions, a marriage was not considered binding until consummated by sexual intercourse. As these traditions blended, the problem of secret marriages arose. An individual who did not wish to enter into an arranged marriage would claim that consent had secretly been given to another. In the Roman tradition, this prior consent was considered binding. The Church therefore slowly began to recommend public consent given in the presence of a priest and witnesses. By the twelfth century, ecclesiastical wedding ceremonies incorporating this public witness, had become common in Europe. The Council of Trent made such ceremonies mandatory.

So from the first few centuries A.D. until the Council of Trent (1563), marriages were not religious in nature.

 

[EXman]

I cite common sense and thousands of years of history. Legality or not if we were ment to like our own gender none of us would be here. For thousands of years this has been the the almost exclusive way why change anything for some whiners that want to cheapen the term marriage.

Why the fvck can't they just leave it alone. Really this is going to make more people hate homosexuals. You libs brand them homophobes but really that is retarded. They just don't like gays. Most people don't like neo-nazis but it is not because they are neo-naziphobic they just don't like them.

Definition of Homophobia

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

 

[Moonbeam]

Marriage is an institution and love is blind. Marriage is an institution for the blind.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In the Islamic world, marriage is sanctioned between a man and up to four women. In Imperial China, formal marriage was sanctioned only between a man and a woman, although a man could take several concubines and the children from the union were considered legitimate.

Lots of other tidbits on that page too.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

That may be true but according to Bushies . . . homosexuals are a THREAT to marriage . . . I would say that qualifies as fear . . . irrational but still fear.

Granted, it's not surprising that Bushies don't understand unconditional love.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: EXman
I cite common sense and thousands of years of history. Legality or not if we were ment to like our own gender none of us would be here. For thousands of years this has been the the almost exclusive way why change anything for some whiners that want to cheapen the term marriage.

Why the fvck can't they just leave it alone. Really this is going to make more people hate homosexuals. You libs brand them homophobes but really that is retarded. They just don't like gays. Most people don't like neo-nazis but it is not because they are neo-naziphobic they just don't like them.

Definition of Homophobia

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

<cue 1960s voice> Why can't those fvcking n!ggers just stop whining about equal rights and just appreciate what they have. Pushing for more and more rights is just going to make all the normal people hate them more. Most people don't like blacks, but it's not because they're racist, they just don't like them.

People can dislike black people without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

That may be true but according to Bushies . . . homosexuals are a THREAT to marriage . . . I would say that qualifies as fear . . . irrational but still fear.

Granted, it's not surprising that Bushies don't understand unconditional love.

Unconditional love is for people, but doesn't have to be for their actions.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman
I cite common sense and thousands of years of history. Legality or not if we were ment to like our own gender none of us would be here. For thousands of years this has been the the almost exclusive way why change anything for some whiners that want to cheapen the term marriage.

Why the fvck can't they just leave it alone. Really this is going to make more people hate homosexuals. You libs brand them homophobes but really that is retarded. They just don't like gays. Most people don't like neo-nazis but it is not because they are neo-naziphobic they just don't like them.

Definition of Homophobia

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

Well there it bigotry in all its glory. "Most people don't like neo-nazis ( gays)but it is not because they are neo-naziphobic (gays)they just don't like them." Yup, you have an irrational bias against gays you don't understand and can't explain. That is why you are a bigot. You nave a mental illness, an irrational phobia you can't explain, control, or justify and in spite of all the evidence that you are mentally ill you want to insist there's justice in your claim. What you are is nuts, and dangerously so. Hope somebody doesn't blow you away because they don't like the way you look. Try to have a little shame. Your arrogance is pathetic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your arrogance is pathetic.

<insert either mirror comment or something about kettle/pot>

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your arrogance is pathetic.

<insert either mirror comment or something about kettle/pot>

CkG

Please tell me how it isn't pathetic to have an irrational and unnamed hate for somebody and a willingness to act out on that feeling. Please tell me how it is arrogance to point that out. Take all the space you need. I'm sure you put a lot of thought in your remark.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your arrogance is pathetic.

<insert either mirror comment or something about kettle/pot>

CkG

Please tell me how it isn't pathetic to have an irrational and unnamed hate for somebody and a willingness to act out on that feeling. Please tell me how it is arrogance to point that out. Take all the space you need. I'm sure you put a lot of thought in your remark.

Ah yes, the mirror never reflects back on the great moonbeam.
You run around here yapping about "bigots" and "homophobes" but then again that isn't arrogant at all. You haven't a clue if someone is a bigot or homophobe- you only have your "all knowing" opinion. Which I might ad isn't very "open minded" since you don't seem to be open to the idea that someone might hold a differing opinion and still not be a bigot or homophobe.

Come back when your reflection is clear.

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your arrogance is pathetic.

<insert either mirror comment or something about kettle/pot>

CkG

Please tell me how it isn't pathetic to have an irrational and unnamed hate for somebody and a willingness to act out on that feeling. Please tell me how it is arrogance to point that out. Take all the space you need. I'm sure you put a lot of thought in your remark.

Ah yes, the mirror never reflects back on the great moonbeam.
You run around here yapping about "bigots" and "homophobes" but then again that isn't arrogant at all. You haven't a clue if someone is a bigot or homophobe- you only have your "all knowing" opinion. Which I might ad isn't very "open minded" since you don't seem to be open to the idea that someone might hold a differing opinion and still not be a bigot or homophobe.

Come back when your reflection is clear.

CkG

CkG - it's fairly clear that ExMan is a homophobe, from his wording and from his vehemence.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

That may be true but according to Bushies . . . homosexuals are a THREAT to marriage . . . I would say that qualifies as fear . . . irrational but still fear.

Granted, it's not surprising that Bushies don't understand unconditional love.

Unconditional love is for people, but doesn't have to be for their actions.

CkG

If only that were the case. The problem(one of them) with this issue is that people don't separate the Action from the Person. They say they do, but in practice they do not. At one time, the Divorced were in a similar situation Gays are now. However, if you asked someone balking at the idea of Gay Mariage now about the Divorced, they would treat the Divorced in a much different light. The Divorced are given unconditional Love.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your arrogance is pathetic.

<insert either mirror comment or something about kettle/pot>

CkG

Please tell me how it isn't pathetic to have an irrational and unnamed hate for somebody and a willingness to act out on that feeling. Please tell me how it is arrogance to point that out. Take all the space you need. I'm sure you put a lot of thought in your remark.

Nutzo, you are a bigot and so when you call Kerry a bigot it doesn't mean anything. Let me do it right for you. Kerry is either a bigot or a politically astute, dishonest coward who doesn't want to get rear ended by the homosexual wedge issue.


Come back when your reflection is clear.

CkG

Caddidicy-the quality of being not only always wrong, but always entirely 180 degrees wrong. Let me help you out:

"Ah yes, the mirror never reflects back on the great moonbeam."

If knowing nothing makes me great, I guess.

"You run around here yapping about "bigots" and "homophobes" but then again that isn't arrogant at all."

I walk with great deliberation witnessing against bigots and homophobes because of all the tremendous misery and evil they cause. That doesn't make me arrogant, it makes me responsible, yes, responsible, that's it.

"You haven't a clue if someone is a bigot or homophobe- you only have your "all knowing" opinion."

Is 1 + 1 = 2 an opinion. I simply go by the data provided, or rather the lack of it. I ask for logical reasons why gays shouldn't marry and all I get are irrational opinions. I'm not offering an opinion, I'm simply applying the definition of bigot to people who have irrational bias, just as the word means. Everybody is free to explain the logic behind their opinions, but there is no logic you see. Only irrational feelings. I am simply not blinded by an irrational hate for gays myself, so it's easy to see that you and others are insane. You feel things you can't justify and stomp your feet and insist you are right. You are a bigot if you hold an irrational bias, especially religious in origin. It's definitional not a matter of opinion. If you're not a bigot then why can't you make a case? One that's logical and rational, that is. You're simply just nuts and don't want to see it, no?

Which I might ad isn't very "open minded" since you don't seem to be open to the idea that someone might hold a differing opinion and still not be a bigot or homophobe.

Come back when your reflection is clear.

.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Marriage is an institution and love is blind. Marriage is an institution for the blind.

Some of "us" need the gov't to bring meaning to our marriages. Don't bother us with such ideas!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Unconditional love is for people, but doesn't have to be for their actions.

Actually, I would contend that Bushies practice neither.