Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 15
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

This is a discussion on Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree127Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        04-01-2013, 06:53 PM
      #141
    Trained
    Marriage, AS AN INSTITUTION GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT, isn't about individuals. It is about populations. It is about what happens to society when millions of people follow a construct.

    No, marriage doesn't involve children when a 50 year old marries another 50 year old. But the institution of marriage, and why society cares about it, and why government thinks it is appropriate to regulate, IS about children.

    It isn't about love. It isn't about feeling. It isn't about wants. It has nothing to do with you or me, as individuals.

    It is about what works well, when followed by SOCIETY - get away from individuals, that isn't the governmental concern - what works well for SOCIETY to create the next generation of citizens. Even societies that freely accepted homosexual behavior still had marriage between a man & women, because that is what works - as a society, to raise the next generation. Government has no interest in how a man and a woman FEEL about each other, only in what they DO to raise the next generation. Laws are not made for individuals, but for how those laws affect society as a whole.

    Sometime in the 60s, marriage stopped being about raising kids and started being about 'feeling love for someone'. It doesn't matter if a man feels love for his neighbor's wife - as long as he doesn't act on it. But if people feel free to leave their husband or wife, marry their neighbor's former spouse, and think it won't have a bad effect on society, they are fooling themselves. That is why marriage exists - to give approval to and promote an institution for raising kids.

    Not love. Love is optional, from a societal viewpoint. Remember, for much of history, many marriages were arranged. Individuals may choose to marry 'for love', but marriage isn't supported by government 'for love'.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        04-01-2013, 09:53 PM
      #142
    Weanling
    The more you talk, the more I would hate to be your wife. Sorry.
         
        04-01-2013, 10:06 PM
      #143
    Super Moderator
    Lightbulb

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    We aren't discussing all the reasons someone might WANT to marry, but why society might want to recognize marriage and make it a part of public law. That was done, before the Bible was written and now, FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN. That was why many states had tough divorce laws.

    ...
    Actually, there are historical instances of societies that accepted same sex unions, long before the Bible. From China to the Native Americans it was not vilified or made "illegal". In fact, it was the beginning of Christianity that found pressures to stop these unions. I found this information easily.

    I am sorry that, in your world, Marriage was only for expedience.

    Just curious.....are you in favor of the state bill being introduced that requires a two year waiting period before a divorce can be granted?????
         
        04-01-2013, 10:13 PM
      #144
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Muppetgirl    
    I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal...... I don't get it

    But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles
    Marriage is not, in any form, a "biblical" principal. The idea of marriage predates the bible by quite a long stretch of time. Everyone who uses the bible to to define marriage is totally off base.
    BaileyJo likes this.
         
        04-01-2013, 10:14 PM
      #145
    Trained
    You again try to inject the personal. The personal is irrelevant. The government doesn't care if my wife and I are happy, or in love. The government has no interest in our feelings, or if our marriage is fulfilling. The government does not support the institution of marriage in an attempt to further my happiness or hers. The state doesn't care about us.

    I suppose the state would prefer we be happy, but that isn't why governments support and recognize marriage. If we team up to raise kids well, the government is content with our marriage.
         
        04-01-2013, 10:22 PM
      #146
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    I suppose the state would prefer we be happy, but that isn't why governments support and recognize marriage. If we team up to raise kids well, the government is content with our marriage.
    The government is soon about ready to be content with gay marriage. So you do not hold the cornerstone on it much longer.

    Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.
         
        04-01-2013, 11:03 PM
      #147
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BaileyJo    
    ...Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.
    I'm not at all callous about marriage. Mine is now over 26 years, and I love her far more now than I did when we married. But again, IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU. IT ISN'T ABOUT ME. My personal happiness isn't relevant to the government's endorsement of marriage.

    The world doesn't revolve around your happiness. Marriage wasn't intended to make people "happy".

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    
    Actually, there are historical instances of societies that accepted same sex unions, long before the Bible. From China to the Native Americans it was not vilified or made "illegal". In fact, it was the beginning of Christianity that found pressures to stop these unions. I found this information easily...
    Fine. Cite them. Show me the successful societies that encouraged homosexual 'marriages'. Show me the MARRIAGES that successful societies used to endorse homosexual unions.

    Homosexual activity? Absolutely! There are a number of societies that have allowed and even encouraged it to some degree. Homosexual marriage? Odd that even the proponents of homosexual marriage didn't make that claim in the oral arguments.
    "Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to Li Yinhe in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality.

    The term "Luan Feng" was used to describe homosexuality in the "Shang Dynasty Records". Interestingly, there are no record of lesbianism in Chinese history...

    ...After the Han Dynasty, the general attitude was tolerant, so long as homosexuals fulfilled their filial duties by getting married and continuing the family line...

    ...The years 1573-1620 marked the most flourishing period of the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644)...Prostitution was a common practice at that time, due to the moral concept which advocated the acceptance of natural sexual needs, an approach promoted by the neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming. Male prostitutes (gigolos) were widely available to meet their clients' specific requirements.

    Confucianism was canonized during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), with emphasis put on strict obedience to the social order. That is to say, both wife and husband should always remember their correct relationship, but homosexuals went directly against such rules."
    History of Chinese homosexuality
         
        04-01-2013, 11:06 PM
      #148
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BaileyJo    
    The government is soon about ready to be content with gay marriage. So you do not hold the cornerstone on it much longer.

    Personally, yeah, I still am grateful I am not your wife. You seem to be very calious when it comes to marriage.
    The impression I get is not one of callousness about marriage, but more a pragmatic and detached view of the issues. I'm willing to take it one step further. The state only pays a lick of attention to marriages for tax purposes.
         
        04-01-2013, 11:19 PM
      #149
    Weanling
    Bsms, you can quote every single piece of literature that you want, throw every piece of history out there, drop as much as you want about the Constitution, even throw in a few links.... The bottom line is, the fact that gays can get married is coming. Keep talking if you want, it's not going to change the fact that a homosexual marriage will be just as valid as a heterosexual. And yes, there may even be a few happy marriages out there too.

    I'm not going to continue to debate something that is inevitable. It's a waste of my time and energy.
         
        04-01-2013, 11:23 PM
      #150
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MysterySparrow    
    The state only pays a lick of attention to marriages for tax purposes.
    That actually could be true. But it is the Federal government that is stopping the legality of marriages whether the state approves or not.
         

    Quick Reply
    Please help keep the Horse Forum enjoyable by reporting rude posts.
    Message:
    Options

    Register Now

    In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

    Already have a Horse Forum account?
    Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

    New to the Horse Forum?
    Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

    User Name:
    Password
    Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
    Password:
    Confirm Password:
    Email Address
    Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
    Email Address:

    Log-in

    Human Verification

    In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


    Old Thread Warning
    This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 08:40 PM
    Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 10:49 PM
    Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 07:56 PM
    Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 07:16 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0