Michelle Bachmann - gays can marry, but only the opposite sex....

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

The purpose of the formal union known as marriage is clear and scientifically absolute and therefore physically impossible for any alternative involving only one sex, ideology is irrelevant. There is only one law that can alter such a definition and I am sorry to say that is beyond the scope of mankind.

The laws of man relies on definitive terminology, not the other way around and it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter's link

matrimony

Pronunciation:/ˈmatrɪməni/
noun
[mass noun]

the state of being married; marriage:the joys of matrimony

So the "purpose of the formal union known as marriage" is "the state of being married"? Your "argument" makes no sense.

How exactly do you get "clear and scientifically absolute and therefore physically impossible for any alternative involving only one sex" from that?

How is it clear that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it physically impossible for marriage to involve only one sex?

What law are you talking about and why is it "beyond the scope of mankind"? Ideology does not sound irrelevant for you...




It is quite simple for a definition to be changed, quite simple for a law to be changed.

Same-sex marriages are already legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. In the United States, same-sex marriages are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.

Many other countries (including the UK) and some US states have same-sex "civil partnerships" or "civil unions", which are often effectively marriages by another name, with the same rights and benefits.

The British Government is planning on legalising actual same-sex marriages within this Parliament.


As for "it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change." I think it should be said... Please, enlighten us...

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Many other countries (including the UK) and some US states have same-sex "civil partnerships" or "civil unions", which are often effectively marriages by another name, with the same rights and benefits.

The British Government is planning on legalising actual same-sex marriages within this Parliament.

Actually civil partnerships have most of the same rights and benefits but not all..

Also the same sex marriages that the government want to introduce will be civil only...

I think the problem is that marriage is still seen as largely a religious ceremony as a union between a man and woman in the eyes of whatever deity they believe in .Civil ceremonies done through a registry office have gone someway to remove the religious aspect and make it a legal union rather than a religious one .Even those still have a basis in religion though which is why imo there is still the difference between same sex marriages and heterosexual marriages

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by danielf

Can I have some of what you've been smoking. I'm hoping it'll suddenly reveal some warped logic in your posts.

How is it, according to the definition you kindly posted, physically impossible for two people of the same sex to 'achieve the state of being married', and why is that a purpose of being married?

Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.

Originally Posted by Damien

What?

We can change the terminology easily. It's not impossible by any means, some places already to do it and found out that it's very possible.

Yes you can change and redefine terminology but not without compromising the original definition so therefore it is not as easy as you suggest.

When law is used to ratify terminology redefining any terminology presents great risk.

Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.

A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.

Actually, I was raised by two lesbians, and my mother got pregnant through IVF. So there...

Yes you can change and redefine terminology but not without compromising the original definition so therefore it is not as easy as you suggest.

When law is used to ratify terminology redefining any terminology presents great risk.

Really? What risk

Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.

A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?

At a guess, they simply want the recognition of their bond and commitment that heterosexuals get. That, and the rights (pensions etc.) that go with it.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Actually civil partnerships have most of the same rights and benefits but not all..

Also the same sex marriages that the government want to introduce will be civil only...

Surely you're not advocating that the government forces religious institutions to recognise same-sex marriages?

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.

That may have been the case a few hundred years ago ,or even up to the middle of the last century but in the modern western world that is no longer the case .Marriage to some is just a big celebration ,to others it has religious meaning and to others it is a legal contract for financial reasons .I myself would like to see all the legal/financial benefits of a formal ceremony introduced into common law partnerships be they gay or heterosexual .I see no reason to formalise a partnership in law be it state law or religious law
The subject of this thread (Michelle Bachmann)is driven purely by religious motives so it is understandable that her views reflect that ,but those same views are becoming increasingly separate to mainstream views regarding gays and lesbians who just want their partnership recognised the same as a married couple ,or those (such as me) who have a common law partnership

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.



Yes you can change and redefine terminology but not without compromising the original definition so therefore it is not as easy as you suggest.

When law is used to ratify terminology redefining any terminology presents great risk.

Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.

A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?

What about people who marry, but don't procreate - are they not really married?

Why can't two people of sound mind and legal age who love each other and are committed to each other, marry? Why does their gender matter? They don't want extra rights, just the same rights (legal and civil)..

Same-sex marriage cannot be shown to have negatively affected any traditional marriage in any way whatsoever, ever – even if that was a factor for basing a law on. Which it isn’t.

Same-sex marriage in states that now allow it has had zero, repeat zero, impact on the lives and livelihoods of people who oppose it. No church has been forced to perform marriages that they oppose, just as they didn’t have to perform marriages they opposed prior to the legalisation of same sex marriage – hysteria not withstanding. Marauding bands of sparkly homosexuals don’t roam the streets waving guns, forcing straights into gay marriage. Law and order and life seems pretty much the same now as before. The earth’s orbit hasn’t changed.

Same-sex marriage deprives nobody, not one single person, of any right that they have at this exact moment

As Damien said she is a complete non entity think of her as the warmup act to the real candidates she is good for putting out there getting her to open her mouth and gauge response before putting the serious ones out to find out what they should avoid. There is as much chance of me becoming the next president as her it really is a nothing story.

If the story is her ignorance well most of us already know the world has no shortage of idiots and morons i see little point in highlighting the fact once again and giving what they want ie. space of any sort for the rubbish they peddle.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Actually civil partnerships have most of the same rights and benefits but not all..

Also the same sex marriages that the government want to introduce will be civil only...

I thought that the Government was also going to allow having same-sex marriages in a "place of worship"? Or was that for civil partnerships only?

Originally Posted by martyh

I think the problem is that marriage is still seen as largely a religious ceremony as a union between a man and woman in the eyes of whatever deity they believe in .Civil ceremonies done through a registry office have gone someway to remove the religious aspect and make it a legal union rather than a religious one .Even those still have a basis in religion though which is why imo there is still the difference between same sex marriages and heterosexual marriages

My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony in a register office. By law, no religious aspect is allowed at all in a civil wedding.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.

What has that got to do with anything? You seem to be changing your "argument", as that does not fit with what you were saying previously where the "purpose of the formal union known as marriage" is "the state of being married".

As mentioned previously in the thread, the "requirement" to consummate a marriage is not a barrier to same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples can still consummate.

What are you going on about?

Any chance of answering...

How is it clear that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex?

How is it physically impossible for marriage to involve only one sex?

What law are you talking about and why is it "beyond the scope of mankind"? Ideology does not sound irrelevant for you...

As for "it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change." I think it should be said... Please, enlighten us...

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Yes you can change and redefine terminology but not without compromising the original definition so therefore it is not as easy as you suggest.

When law is used to ratify terminology redefining any terminology presents great risk.

Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.

A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?

So what it the original definition is "compromised"?

What risk?

So marriage is purely for procreation?

My wife and I have no intention of having children. We married each other because we love each other and wanted a formal commitment. Is our marriage not real simply because we have no desire to procreate?

My maternal grandfather re-married many years after my maternal grandmother died. His second wife was too old to have children. Does that invalidate their marriage?

What about other opposite-sex couples who marry but either do not want to have children or can not have children? People who just don't want kids, people who are infertile, people who are too old, etc. Are they not really married? Should they not be allowed to get married?


As for the "sudden infatuation" of the gay community with marriage... I don't believe it is "sudden", and I don't see an issue with gay people simply wanting the same rights as everyone else.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<snip>

Same-sex marriage deprives nobody, not one single person, of any right that they have at this exact moment

Actually, there may be some issues with religious registrar officers who do not like to wed same-sex couples. In The Netherlands there is a debate over wether or not this is a sackable offence, so these people might be put out. Other than that, it's difficult to see how anyone would be inconvenienced.

Originally Posted by Matt D

I


My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony in a register office. By law, no religious aspect is allowed at all in a civil wedding.

.

I know that and didn't say there was .I meant that even with a registry wedding the roots come from a religious ceremony simply because you are getting married .Registry weddings are a legal union in the eyes of the state instead of a god but it is still a wedding

[devilincarnate]

Can I just ask what may be a stupid question?

But why do people need to get married?

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Can I just ask what may be a stupid question?

But why do people need to get married?

A formal religious union (for some)

A big fat party (for others)

A legal reason (for some)

A mix of the above

I myself don't see the need

[Russ]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Can I just ask what may be a stupid question?

But why do people need to get married?

People rarely marry because they 'need' to. Mostly it's because they want to. I'm a traditionalist, I'll marry in a church but nobody is holding a gun to my head.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Surely you're not advocating that the government forces religious institutions to recognise same-sex marriages?

No I'm advocating that everyone sees marriages as a union between two people.. Nothing more and nothing less