Supreme Court declares bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

[Alpha D]

See i find it interesting that...relationship between children ( i dont like to use the word minor because the definition of a minor in some peoples brains gets wishy washy) is strongly frowned upon ...no its illegal! Any sexual relationship that is non consent is illegal...but even if a child was cohered into saying yes...its still illegal (minor)

My question is..."based on what reason do people take that stand, that it is not ok?" I feel like perhaps it is based on Moral? or a "Natural" feeling inside us as inteligent humans or life form? You dont see it in the animal kingdom either....or is saying that its just wrong the soul reason...i feel like there is no need for law...no need for legislation...when it comes to that topic? However will those lines become blurry soon as well? Just because some people have that urge inside and desire or crave for children does not make it right??

If that is the case isnt there a possibility that other things may fall under the same categories....

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Kracka

I'm sure they said the same thing in the 1950's about gay marriage and the civil rights movement

The example is extreme and unlikely, I'll give you, but it does make a valid point.

I don't understand what the connection between the 2 things is. Do you see the connection as both gay marriage and pedophilia being immoral and the slippery slope having gay marriage being the lesser of 2 evils, yet an evil nonetheless? Now it's just going to be a snowball effect of immorality?

[Alpha D]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Marriage really isn't a Christian institution. If you look at the history of marriage, it's something that's been practiced many non-Christians though out the history of humanity. It's really not even a religious institution for that matter. Marriage was really mostly intended to be an institution of identification so that people know who's offspring belong to whom. As in property/possession. Over the years it's purpose has changed many, many times in many different cultures as societal needs have changed.

Some have argued (with out using religion) that if it's purpose was to identify belonging of offspring, than it must also have been intended to promote families, and population growth. Fair enough, makes sense. Then they go on to argue that if same sex marriage doesn't promote either of these things than it's wrong.

And I can even agree with that; same sex marriage does no promote population growth. However, most scientists believe that homosexuality is natural population control. Homosexuality can be found in nearly every single species of animal. Its has been observed that as populations of many animals go up, so does that species' rates of homosexuality.

We permit all kinds of things in our society that don't have benefits to anyone else. And the reason for this is usually simply that they also don't have a negative affect on society as a whole. Same sex marriage doesn't have to effect anyone else. Don't like it? Don't have a gay wedding and don't go to them. If you avoid doing either, it's really not going to affect your life.

Question sir, it seems like you believe history or parts of history that can be traced accurately i assume through written records ect? So if thats the case if one can trace Bible records through history through written records commonly known and conveniently combined as the bible.... but also through maybe other secular scholars around the same time frame..that may talk about the same events ect...would you think they are credible?

And wait what there is same sex relationship between ANIMALS! Woah i want to see prove of that one...natural population control what!? This cant be a serious scientific study

[Alpha D]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

I don't understand what the connection between the 2 things is. Do you see the connection as both gay marriage and pedophilia being immoral and the slippery slope having gay marriage being the lesser of 2 evils, yet an evil nonetheless? Now it's just going to be a snowball effect of immorality?

Making one thing socially acceptable has always been the gateway there is no arguing that! This world as whole is on slippery slopes

[1ViciousGSX]

Alpha D must be posting from an iPhone with spellcheck turned on?

[1ViciousGSX]

[Alpha D]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Alpha D must be posting from an iPhone with spellcheck turned on?

BEST BELIEVE IT! This is a serious Topic, and just discussing some of the potential outcomes among us...its incredible to see how blurry the lines of right and wrong have become, and where they are headed hmmm....

[A//// Guy]

Originally Posted by Alpha D

BEST BELIEVE IT! This is a serious Topic, and just discussing some of the potential outcomes among us...its incredible to see how blurry the lines of right and wrong have become, and where they are headed hmmm....

You have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do we.

[Alpha D]

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

You have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do we.

Alright.

[1ViciousGSX]

Well this cleared it up for me. I feel so much better now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtgY1q0J_TQ&hd=1

[Kracka]

Skittles!

That was actually really funny. I have been wondering when I'll receive my fist same-sex wedding invite.

[1ViciousGSX]

Gay hymns,...

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Alpha D

And wait what there is same sex relationship between ANIMALS! Woah i want to see prove of that one...natural population control what!? This cant be a serious scientific study

There are MANY studies done on this actually, and it is naturally occurring in almost every animal species.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Alpha D

And wait what there is same sex relationship between ANIMALS! Woah i want to see prove of that one...natural population control what!? This cant be a serious scientific study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...exual_behavior

[goodhart]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

It could be said about 6 of 9 justices who couldn't understand the plain language and meaning of four (4) words when it came to Obamacare, "through a state exchange" or the definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman".

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Whether or not you believe in gay marriage is a small part of what happened. But what you should really be upset about is the fact the SCOTUS (and the President for that matter) are over stepping their bounds as laid out by the Constitution. And that's what really matters.

You speak of separation of state and church, but Who's definition of marriage is "One man, one woman"? The Bible or the Government? If they are only to interpret legalese, then why would a biblical definition be brought into it?

Originally Posted by Alpha D

My question is..."based on what reason do people take that stand, that it is not ok?" I feel like perhaps it is based on Moral? or a "Natural" feeling inside us as inteligent humans or life form? You dont see it in the animal kingdom either....or is saying that its just wrong the soul reason...i feel like there is no need for law...no need for legislation...when it comes to that topic?

You don't see immoral behavior in the animal kingdom? What about the many animals that will eat their own young when faced with starvation, or the males of certain species killing the females young so that they may breed again sooner?

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Alpha D must be posting from an iPhone with spellcheck turned on?

And thesaurus turned on too I think

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

There are MANY studies done on this actually, and it is naturally occurring in almost every animal species.

How bout bi-curious animals?

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by goodhart

You speak of separation of state and church, but Who's definition of marriage is "One man, one woman"? The Bible or the Government? If they are only to interpret legalese, then why would a biblical definition be brought into it?

No I don't, I speak of the definition of marriage as outlined by
Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

Mar´riage
n. 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legalunion of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony. Marriage is honorable in all. - Heb. xiii. 4.

2. The marriage vow or contract. 3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certainking which made a marriage for his son. - Matt. xxii. 2.

4. Any intimate or closeunion. 5. In pinochle, bézique, and similargames at cards, the combination of a king and queen of the same suit. If of the trumpsuit, it is called a royal marriage. Marriage brokage a - The business of bringing about marriages b - The payment made or demanded for the procurement of a marriage. Marriage favors knots of whiteribbons, or bunches of whiteflowers, worn at weddings. Marriage settlement (Law) a settlement of property in view, and in consideration, of marriage


Worldnet Dictionary:

Noun 1. marriage - the state of being a marriedcouplevoluntarilyjoined for life (or untildivorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "Godbless this union" Synonyms: matrimony, spousal relationship, wedlock, union
2. marriage - two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a marriedcouplewithoutlove" Synonyms: man and wife, married couple
3. marriage - the act of marrying; the nuptialceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" Synonyms: marriage ceremony, wedding
4. marriage - a close and intimateunion; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

[1ViciousGSX]

Or
Legal Dictionary:

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.
2. To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually contracted.
3.-1. They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infant; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve, and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.
4. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marry a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person. Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 9.
5. When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question. 2 Kent, Com. 66; Shelf. on Marr. and Div. 199; 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 246; 5 Paige, 43.
6.-2. Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated.
7.-1. The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.
8.-2. Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. Vaugh. 206; S. C. 2 Vent. 9. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute. 2 Kent, Com. 79; Vide Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 7.
9.-3. Impotency, (q.v.) which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable. 2 Phillim. Rep. 10; 2 Hagg. Rep. 832.
10.-4. Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. Poth. Contr. de Mariage, part 3, c. 3, art. 7. And the same provision exists in the French code civil, art. 298. See 1 Toull. n. 555.
11.-3. The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.
12. The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.
13. In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. 7 Mass. Rep. 48; 2 Greenl. Rep. 102. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. Reeve's Dom. Rel. 196, 200, 290. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. 2 Watts, Rep. 9; 1 How. S. C. R. 219. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey; 2 Halsted, 138; New Hampshire; 2 N. H. Rep. 268; and Kentucky. 3 Marsh. R. 370. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. Code, art. 101 to 107. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage. 6 L. R. 470.
14. A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws. Story, Confl. of Laws, Sec. 87; Shelf. on M. & D. 140; 1 Bland. 188; 2 Bland. 485; 3 John. Ch. R. 190; 8 Ala. R. 48.
15. Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.
16. In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. See 6 Conn. R. 446. This rule is much qualified. See Bigamy.
17. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife; 2 Bl. R. 899; declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country; 2 Moo. & R. 503; describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring; 2 Str. 1073; 8 Ves. 417; or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. 1 Bl. R. 639; S. C. 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 174; Cowp. 594; 3 Swans. R. 400; 8 S. & R. 159; 2 Hayw. R. 3; 1 Taylor, R. 121; 1 H. & McH. 152; 2 N. & McC. 114; 5 Day, R. 290; 4 R. & M. 507; 9 Mass. R. 414; 4 John. 52; 18 John. 346. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive. Cowp. 591; 6 T. R. 330.
18. The civil effects of marriage are the following: 1. It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.
19.-2. It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.
20.-3. It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.
21.-4. It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.
22.-5. The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head: erunt duo in carne una.
23.-6. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband.
24.-7. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicil and gains that of her husband.
25.-8. One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.
26.-9. The children acquire the domicil of their father.
27.-10. It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin.
28.-11. It makes all the issue legitimate.
Vide, generally, 1 Bl. Com. 433; 15 Vin. Ab. 252; Bac. Ab. h.t.; Com. Dig. Baron and Feme, B; Id. Appx. b. t.; 2 Sell. Pr. 194; Ayl. Parergon, 359; 1 Bro. Civ. Law, 94; Rutherf. Inst. 162; 2 Supp. to Ves. jr. 334; Roper on Husband & Wife; Poynter on Marriage and Divorce; Merl. Repert. h.t.; Pothier, Traite du Contrat de Marriage; Toullier, h.t.; Chit. Pract. Index, h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t., Burge on the Confl. of Laws, Index, h.t.; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

MARRIAGE, PROMISE OF. A promise of marriage is a contract entered into between a man and woman that they will marry each other.
2. When the promise is made between persons competent to contract matrimony, an action lies for a breach of it. Vide Promise of Marriage.


ALL CAN BE SEEN HERE:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/marriage

[SlowWhite]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...exual_behavior

Believe frogs and some fish can even change sex depending on population demands.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Or
Legal Dictionary:

MARRIAGE....


ALL CAN BE SEEN HERE:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/marriage

I think you are confused on how a dictionary works. A dictionary is a book that contains the words we use and how we define those words at any given time. The dictionary doesn't tell us how a word should be defined, it records how we define words. Meanings of words change over time and dictionaries will change to reflect the new definitions.

You can feel better now that the dictionary contains the new definition of marriage.

marriage
noun mar·riage \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[Trogdor]

Slightly off topic. But he brings up some pretty valid points regarding gay marriage in general. Also, bummer about the actual topic he's talking about!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra6B8sAFfFI