Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 237

Thread: Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041

    Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage

    HARTFORD, Conn. - The state Supreme Court on Monday took up the issue of gay marriage in Connecticut, the first state in the nation to pass a civil unions law without court intervention.

    Eight gay and lesbian couples, unhappy with civil unions, are suing over the state's refusal to grant them marriage licenses. They want the court to rule that the state's marriage law is unconstitutional because it applies only to heterosexual couples and denies gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

    The state argues that Connecticut's 2005 civil unions law gives the couples the equality they seek under state law.

    In court Monday, the justices fired off questions at Bennett Klein, the attorney for the plaintiffs.

    "How can it reasonably be done or logically be done to sort of delink the long-standing, deeply held institutional aspect of marriage, that it's a union between a man and a woman, and then define marriage as something other than that for purposes of this argument?" asked Justice Richard Palmer.

    Klein replied that the fundamental principles of marriage are not based on gender.

    "It is really a relationship of two legal equals based on mutual consent by which they take responsibility for each other, and that relationship is protected by the state," he said.

    The justices aren't expected to issue a ruling until later this year.

    Attorneys on both sides say a decision in the couples' favor could have nationwide implications for states that have adopted or are considering civil union-like legislation.

    Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships, with New Hampshire set to join in January. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

    "What the state calls something does matter," Klein said. "The only possible reason that the legislature denied marriage here and created a separate institution just for one minority group was because they thought marriage meant something."

    The hearing drew supporters, as well as opponents, including members of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

    "We hope the court will realize that something this radical should be left to the people, that something this disruptive, divisive and controversial should be left to the people to decide and not handed down from above," said Peter Wolfgang, the group's director of public policy.

    The Connecticut couples who sued have been together between 10 and 32 years and say civil unions are inferior to marriage and violate their rights to equal protection and due process.

    Married couples have federal rights related to taxes, Social Security beneficiary rules, veterans' benefits and other laws that people in civil unions don't have. Because civil unions aren't recognized nationwide, other rights, such as the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, disappear when couples cross state lines.

    The couples' claim was dismissed last year by a judge who said they received the equality they sought when Connecticut passed its civil unions law. The couples appealed. Their lawsuit names state ***artment of Public Health and the Madison town clerk's office, which denied marriage licenses to the couples based on state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's advice.

    "Our basic argument is, the trial court correctly recognized that there is a rational basis for the state to use a different name for the same rights and benefits accorded same-sex couples," Blumenthal said. "The rights and benefits are identical, whether the union is called a civil union or a marriage."

    A bill is pending in Connecticut's legislature to approve same-sex marriage, but leaders of the Judiciary Committee say they want to pull it from consideration this session because they do not believe enough lawmakers would vote to approve it. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions bill into law in 2005, has said she would veto a gay marriage bill.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.

    The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.

    The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?

    That's an ass backward argument!!! There is a load of difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why? The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry. The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry.
    Like I said, you don't agree with the liberals on their issue and they call you names.

    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.
    What arguement are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    There is a load of difference between polygamy and same sex marriage. Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?
    Give me one good reason why a man can not marry more than one woman. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Like I said, you don't agree with the liberals on their issue and they call you names.



    What arguement are you referring to? At one point in time 90% of the country opposed interrational marriage. They claimed it was unnatural and against the will of God. It was also stated that interracial children would end up retarded or disabled which was absurb



    Give me one good reason why a man can not marry more than one woman. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?Why are you dodging the question?
    But as a person who doesn't dodge questions like you, here are some reasoning behind not allowing polygamy:

    The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but that’s pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.

    Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldn’t. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But it’s still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.

    Now it's your turn to answer the question!!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    But as a person who doesn't dodge questions like you, here are some reasoning behind not allowing polygamy:

    The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but that’s pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.

    Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldn’t. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But it’s still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.

    Now it's your turn to answer the question!!!!
    I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry." Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?

    I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.

    Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"

    My answer, marriage is a natural right for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement. Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.

    There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.

  7. #7
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry." Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?

    I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.

    Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"

    My answer, marriage is a natural right for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement.
    Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    [/B] Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.

    There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.
    Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.
    If this is true it is news to me. Could you please reference it, thank you. As for Dolphins, here;s what I found http://www.answers.com/topic/dolphin...logical-family

    here is a pertinent excerpt from the above reference:

    "Data for defining mating systems are difficult to collect for dolphins, but genetic studies are now allowing some of the first dolphin paternity testing, and continued work should clarify understanding. Available evidence suggests that monogamy is not a practice in which dolphins engage. Bottlenosed dolphin paternity tests indicate that females may use different sires for subsequent calves. For the better-studied dolphins, associations between breeding males and females tend to be brief, lasting days to weeks, and one male or male coalitions may associate with one receptive female at a time, sometimes battling with other males for access to the female. Males may move between female groups during a breeding season. This pattern has been referred to as serial polygyny or promiscuity."

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.

    Yes, I agree the divorce rate is high and the sanctity of marriage is on the decline however many and I argue even most, still believe in marriage and respect it so because some "straight people have destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own" is no excuse for the government to "put the nail in the coffin of marriage."

  9. #9
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp

    Wendell and Cass, two penguins at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island, Brooklyn, live in a soap opera world of seduction and intrigue. Among the 22 male and 10 female African black-footed penguins in the aquarium's exhibit, tales of love, lust and betrayal are the norm. These birds mate for life. But given the disproportionate male-female ratio at the aquarium, some of the females flirt profusely and dump their partners for single males with better nests.

    Wendell and Cass, however, take no part in these cunning schemes. They have been completely devoted to each other for the last eight years. In fact, neither one of them has ever been with anyone else, says their keeper, Stephanie Mitchell.
    I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  10. #10
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Yes, I agree the divorce rate is high and the sanctity of marriage is on the decline however many and I argue even most, still believe in marriage and respect it so because some "straight people have destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own" is no excuse for the government to "put the nail in the coffin of marriage."
    You are mixing your moral/social beliefs and trying to frame it as a legal issue. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a legal issue. Straight couples receive tax breaks. Gay couples do not. That is the issue and why they are suing. If you want to reserve marriage for straight couples then grant the same legal rights to couples who have civil unions.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  11. #11
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp



    I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.
    From national geographic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

    Headed to the gym...
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    30,963
    I can understand why so many people are against gay marriage. I mean i don't want "us gays" to cripple this sacred bond between a man and a women.

    Oh wait, what is this ? oh, the current divorce rate. Doesn't look to sacred to me.


    Divorce Rate
    Welcome to divorcerate.org, the resource for providing information on the divorce rate in America and around the world.
    What is the current divorce rate in America?
    It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection.

    "50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce."
    The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however.

    Age at marriage for those who divorce in America Age Women Men
    Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%
    20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
    25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
    30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
    35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%


    The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
    50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”

    According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
    The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
    The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
    The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%


    ref http://www.divorcerate.org/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp
    I'll give you the link about the dolphins when I get back from the gym.
    This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    You are mixing your moral/social beliefs and trying to frame it as a legal issue. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a legal issue. Straight couples receive tax breaks. Gay couples do not. That is the issue and why they are suing. If you want to reserve marriage for straight couples then grant the same legal rights to couples who have civil unions.
    In case you did not see the title of the thread, here it is again "Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage". Carlos, it is a legal issue. In Conn. civil union between same sex couples is regonized and ALL state tax and health benefits apply the same as to married couples, did you read the article? They are going to court to force people to recognize the marriage and then they can force other states and the federal government to recognize the marriage. I beleive this is the strongest arguement for gay marraige and warrents open debate. I was hoping that the issue could be discussed with out name calling but the PM you sent me proved otherwise. Someone that has a different opinion then you does not make them narrow minded. I respect your opinions and though I disagree can do so with out getting personal but I refuse to engage in a mud slinging debate. Good bye.

  14. #14
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows.



    In case you did not see the title of the thread, here it is again "Gay couples ask Conn. court for marriage". Carlos, it is a legal issue. In Conn. civil union between same sex couples is regonized and ALL state tax and health benefits apply the same as to married couples, did you read the article? They are going to court to force people to recognize the marriage and then they can force other states and the federal government to recognize the marriage. I beleive this is the strongest arguement for gay marraige and warrents open debate. I was hoping that the issue could be discussed with out name calling but the PM you sent me proved otherwise. Someone that has a different opinion then you does not make them narrow minded. I respect your opinions and though I disagree can do so with out getting personal but I refuse to engage in a mud slinging debate. Good bye.
    I did not call you a name in PM. I replied to your PM and said I think you're being narrow minded with a after it. Apparently that offended you. If so I apologize.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    I did not answer you the first time because you defined the debate with the following, "The only reasoning behind not allowing same sex marriage is pure bigotry." Based on that definition I simply could not win any argument, if I took the opposing view I am a bigot so why waste my time?

    I do appreicate that you answered the second time with out calling me names however you did quote me and inserted into the quotes your own words which again is you re-defining to fit your needs, well just like the original arguement, redifining marriage.

    Your question, "Give me one good reason why gays shouldn't marriage. I bet you cannot come up with one legitimate reason why?"

    My answer, marriage is a natural right for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement. Now redefining marriage to include same sex is NOT a natural right but rather argued to be a civil right. By redefining marraige to accomadate same-sex couples will reduce marriage to nothing more then a means test for social benefits.

    There are a million legitamate arguements for AND against same sex marriages, to simply say that anyone oppossed to gay marriage is a bigot speaks of your level of intelligence in debating but being on the wrong side of the issue you will have to resort to name calling at some point or you will be forced to listen to reason, a no-no for liberals.
    You claim that you are above name calling and mud slinging but use the same tactics you speak against. You may not be a bigot, but you are a hypocrite!!!

    Homosexuality isn't only practiced by human. That natural right comment is assisine. If that's the case why not campaign against contraception because it goes against the natural reason for sex which is procreation. What about campaigning against masterbation, or oral sex because neither lead to the 'natural right' of procreation. Let's face it, the only reason to campaign against same sex marriages is simply because you do not agree with their lifestyles. I'm not gay, but like I stated earlier, two consenting adults (whether their same sex or not) should have the same opportunities as everyone else to marry and be happy. Isn't the pursuit of happiness part of the constitution?
    Last edited by BgMc31; 05-14-2007 at 04:54 PM.

  16. #16
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    You claim that you are above name calling and mud slinging but use the same tactics you speak against. You may not be a bigot, but you are a hypocrite!!!
    Logan, he said it. Not me!


    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    This thread talks about penguins in captivity, it is not relevant. Animals(including humans) behave differently in captivity. As for the dolphins link you posted, I can not view youtube at work so I have no clue what it shows..
    Here's a little something that will, I hope, expand your zoological knowledge . . . It's just the tip of the iceberg, as far as this sort of information goes . . .


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
    Oslo museum opens world's first gay animals exhibition


    The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

    With documentation of gay or lesbian behaviour among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural".

    "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear - homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

    Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature", told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

    The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals.

    "The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals.

    One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest - birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males.

    One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles.

    One radical Christian said organisers of the exhibition - partly funded by the Norwegian government - should "burn in hell", Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries.

    Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behaviour among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.

    Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

    Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

    Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

    And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,264
    Originally Posted by BgMc31
    The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    What arguement are you referring to?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws


    Anti-miscegenation laws
    Laws banning interracial marriage were enforced in several US states until 1967, in Nazi Germany and in South Africa during the Apartheid era.


    [edit] United States
    In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage. Although an Anti-Miscegenation Amendment was proposed in United States Congress in 1912 and 1913, [1] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 17 states that at the time still enforced them.

    The term miscegenation, a word invented by American journalists to discredit the Abolitionsit movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of white-black intermarriage after the abolition of slavery, was first coined in 1863. Yet in British North America laws banning the intermarriage of whites and blacks were enacted as far back as the late seventeenth century. During the colonial era, Virginia (1691) was the first colony in British North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry. This was the first time in world history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or servitude. [2]

    In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking controversial interpretations of the Bible, particularly the story of Phinehas. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead.

    While this aspect of the U.S. history is often discussed in the context of the South, many northern states had anti-miscegenation as well. In 1776, 12 out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their in***endence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Some of these laws were repealed after in***endence. However, later the new slave states as well many new free states such such as Illinois[1] and California[2]. A number of northern and western states repealed them during the nineteenth century. This, however, did little to halt anti-miscegenation sentiments in the rest of the country. Newly established western states continued to enact laws banning interracial marriage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. [3] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    30,963
    Guys why do you even waste your time with this simple minded person? I normally don’t try to offend other members but I made an exception tonight since your statements are offensive to me. You are not trying to understand what others are saying but rather you are stuck in your redneck ways. Why don’t you stop being so negative and listen to what others have to say, walk away from your computer, and then when you come back reply with something intelligent.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    Do your research this is incorrect. Dolphins, peniguins and birds that mate for life have shown they will pair in a homosexual relationship for life. So gay monogmous relationships do exist in nature.



    Marriage IS for social benefits. Marriage hasn't meant anything for a long time. Striaght people destroyed the meaming a long time ago on their own. Look at the divorce rate.
    What specific social value is there in gay marriage?

    I know that you are just responding to the "there are not gays in the wild" post, but let's not try to generate credence for your argument by pointing to the animal kingdom. There are animals who eat their own as well, others who throw feces, still others who eat bugs off of each other. Not exactly the kind of behavior I would emulate.......

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Here's how liberals work, if the people do not want something(e.g.gay marriage) they find a judge that will force it upon them, you disagree with them then you are a hate monger/bigot right wing fanatical. Why even bother with the process of making laws or voting, the liberals will simply find judges that will legislate law from the bench and force it on the masses against their will. Didn't communism fail? Do you think they will give up if the judges rule against them? It will not be over until there is no more morality left.

    The people have spoken again and again, we do NOT want your gay marriage shoved down our throat. What's next, polygamy? Why not? They are consenting adults?
    Marriage is just a contract in the eyes of government and it shouldn't matter whether the contract is between people of the opposite sex, same same, polygamists, etc. if there consenting adults, what's the big deal. if the make up of married couple or couples in your neighborshood is effecting your marriage, you have bigger issues to look into.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13
    What specific social value is there in gay marriage?

    I know that you are just responding to the "there are not gays in the wild" post, but let's not try to generate credence for your argument by pointing to the animal kingdom. There are animals who eat their own as well, others who throw feces, still others who eat bugs off of each other. Not exactly the kind of behavior I would emulate.......
    You could ask the same question of heterosexual marriage. Does it matter why other adults get married? Plus it rings hollow for conservative to talk about being for personal responsibility and individual freedom but want the government to prevent two men or two women from marrying.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    I really can't understand why so many people are against it. Does what other people do in their life effect you that much? If you have a gay couple living next door to you and they have a civil union. Whats going to change inside your home if its called a marriage?

    Our country is supposed to be about equal rights and freedom. Lets not be hypocrites.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    First, I am sorry if you are offended by my views, they are my views and I hope we can discuss and even debate with out becoming overly emotional.

    Second, I NEVER said homosexuality was not natural to humans or animals. In fact the inverse is true. My statement was and is

    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    marriage is a natural right for opposite sex couples based on the biological need to procreate. This right pre-dates government and religion and has occured since the beginning of human life, sorry not human life but life(period). To give further creadance to the arguement of natural right other species that practice monogamy, 90% of birds are mongamous, do so only between opposite sexes. None, no species on Earth practices monogamy between same sexes, hence the Natural rights arguement.
    The point is, the reason for pairing in opposite sex relationships in nature is for the survival of the species. Opposite sex pairs are biologically able to procreate where as same sex pairs are not hence nature(not me) dictates this. No one has shone me a reference otherwise, remember reference a monogamous homosexual pairing between animals in their natural environment.

  25. #25
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    I gave you the national geographic youtube link which you obviously did not watch.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants
    Marriage is just a contract in the eyes of government and it shouldn't matter whether the contract is between people of the opposite sex, same same, polygamists, etc. if there consenting adults, what's the big deal. if the make up of married couple or couples in your neighborshood is effecting your marriage, you have bigger issues to look into.
    This is what will happen when the definition of marriage is redifined by a government!!!

    but BgMc31 said this...

    Quote Originally Posted by BgMc31
    The problem with polygamy is that it is very likely to be an exploitative relationship where one person in the relationship (almost always the man) lords over the other members (almost always the women). It may sound very open and tolerant to think all members of a polygamous marriage would be 100% willing and not at all disadvantaged, but that’s pretty much ignoring that the history of polygamy is tied fairly directly into the subjugation of women.

    Furthermore, allowing polygamy would lead to a fairly radical reordering of society in a way gay marriage simply wouldn’t. Gay marriage is still a traditional marriage, albeit between two people of the same sex. But it’s still about two people in a consensual relationship. Even now, without gay marriage, many gay couples are living together in committed, healthy relationships. So, in many ways, gay marriage is just making official something that already exists.
    So the question is, who gets to define marriage? and re-define? Politicians? You think it's o.k. for any consenting adults to engage in marriage, BgMg doen't agrre but it's o.k. for gays. The bottom line is mariage has been defined for 1,000s and 1,000s of years by many different religions, societies, civilizations and ALL have defined it as between a man and a woman(s). It's important to some people and having a government come in and relegate marriage to nothing more the a means for benefits is a disservice to those that still honor the institution.

    "What's the big deal?" To most, marriage is a big deal and it should be.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Originally Posted by BgMc31
    The same argument was used years ago when states overwhelming supported a ban on interracial marriage.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws


    Anti-miscegenation laws
    Laws banning interracial marriage were enforced in several US states until 1967, in Nazi Germany and in South Africa during the Apartheid era.


    [edit] United States
    In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage. Although an Anti-Miscegenation Amendment was proposed in United States Congress in 1912 and 1913, [1] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 17 states that at the time still enforced them.

    The term miscegenation, a word invented by American journalists to discredit the Abolitionsit movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of white-black intermarriage after the abolition of slavery, was first coined in 1863. Yet in British North America laws banning the intermarriage of whites and blacks were enacted as far back as the late seventeenth century. During the colonial era, Virginia (1691) was the first colony in British North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry. This was the first time in world history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or servitude. [2]

    In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking controversial interpretations of the Bible, particularly the story of Phinehas. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead.

    While this aspect of the U.S. history is often discussed in the context of the South, many northern states had anti-miscegenation as well. In 1776, 12 out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their in***endence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Some of these laws were repealed after in***endence. However, later the new slave states as well many new free states such such as Illinois[1] and California[2]. A number of northern and western states repealed them during the nineteenth century. This, however, did little to halt anti-miscegenation sentiments in the rest of the country. Newly established western states continued to enact laws banning interracial marriage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. [3] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them.
    I don't get it Tock? I know as everyone here does that it was against the law to marry outside your race in some areas over time. That has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    "“the fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Webster’s dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races. There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” because homosexuals cannot procreate." Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton told the Baptist Press that “knocking down bans on interracial marriage did not redefine marriage, it affirmed marriage by saying that any man has a right to marry any woman under the law. But what same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents seek to do is to radically redefine the very definition of marriage to say it’s not about gender. Marriage is about bringing the genders together, not keeping the races apart.”Michael Foust. "Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex ‘marriage’ -- parallels?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    This is what will happen when the definition of marriage is redifined by a government!!!

    but BgMc31 said this...



    So the question is, who gets to define marriage? and re-define? Politicians? You think it's o.k. for any consenting adults to engage in marriage, BgMg doen't agrre but it's o.k. for gays. The bottom line is mariage has been defined for 1,000s and 1,000s of years by many different religions, societies, civilizations and ALL have defined it as between a man and a woman(s). It's important to some people and having a government come in and relegate marriage to nothing more the a means for benefits is a disservice to those that still honor the institution.

    "What's the big deal?" To most, marriage is a big deal and it should be.
    But I'm not religious at all. So is it right that religious leaders or tradition dictate what I'm able to do? Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works.

    Technically my girlfriend and i never want to have kids. When we get married ill'' probably fixed. Our marriage wont be about procreation at all. So does that effect or change our definition of marriage.

    If you ask ask me the definition of marriage i dont think i would have ever used the words a man and a women. I know i would have used 2 people.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by gixxerboy1
    But I'm not religious at all. So is it right that religious leaders or tradition dictate what I'm able to do? Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works.

    Technically my girlfriend and i never want to have kids. When we get married ill'' probably fixed. Our marriage wont be about procreation at all. So does that effect or change our definition of marriage.

    If you ask ask me the definition of marriage i dont think i would have ever used the words a man and a women. I know i would have used 2 people.
    I agree that it should not be a religious arguement, that certianly would not be fair to non-religious people and have not used religion as an arguement. but you say "Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works." and to further that fact the politicians have banned homosexual marriage and that is why the gay couples are going to court to overturn that. Based on that statment you should except the laws the politicians have made. So do you wish to change that statment?

  30. #30
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    How does a gay couple getting married personally effect you?
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    I agree that it should not be a religious arguement, that certianly would not be fair to non-religious people and have not used religion as an arguement. but you say "Fact is politicians do make laws that effect us personally. That's just how the country works." and to further that fact the politicians have banned homosexual marriage and that is why the gay couples are going to court to overturn that. Based on that statment you should except the laws the politicians have made. So do you wish to change that statment?
    Yes but we also have the right to try and get laws changed. And they are going about it the legal way so i dont see a problem with it. I dont agree with protest and marches. But taking up in court yes. I may not agree with the courts decision but it is what it is.

    BTW. I didn't mean you were bringing up the religious argument. I was just saying in general some people have used that to make their point.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos_E
    How does a gay couple getting married personally effect you?
    I'll have to go to more weddings and buy more gifts

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Vegas, bitches!!!
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.

    No matter how elequently you attempt to present your argument, you are still dodging the question, just like you did before!

    I won't answer for Carlos, but I will give a logical answer to you redirect. How does keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect a gay couple? The answer is obvious, gay couple will not have the rights as straight couples. They can't will assets, they can't share health plans from most employers, etc. The list goes on and on. So again, how does same sex marriage effect you?

  35. #35
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.
    It effects me because when I get married I will not have the same rights that you have. If we decide to move to another state our marriage will not be recognized. So yes, it will personally effect me.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Repost
    Posts
    7,433
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    To be honest Carlos, that is a very difficult question. I think the easy route is to throw the question back at you. How is keeping marriage between opposite sexes effect you? I know, you asked me first and I am dodging the question but it's more than how it effects me and more to do with how it benefits society and the country and not so much on the individual level. I think the only ones effected on the individual level are gay couples and their famalies. How does gay marriage effect society as a whole? NO ONE KNOWS! because it has never happened before. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was the norm, they never married so we have no historical reference, it's new.
    It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.

  37. #37
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoggage_54
    It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.
    It's legal in Spain and there fine over there to.
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    torrance,ca
    Posts
    3,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoggage_54
    It's legal in Canada, and our society is doing just fine.
    Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law.

    A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.

    P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.

  39. #39
    Carlos_E's Avatar
    Carlos_E is offline National Level Bodybuilder/Hall of Famer/RETIRED
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    17,629
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law.

    A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.
    So it goes back to the Church. Have you ever heard of separation of Church and State? The Church has no business setting laws. I thought you were not going to make this a religious issue.

    P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.
    The legal age of consent for females in Canada is 14. A grown man can legally marry a 14 year old girl. Age of consent is a separate issue and unrelated to gay married. In Alabama, New Hampshire, New York, North & South Carolina you can marry a 14 girl. Why aren't you complaining about that?
    Muscle Asylum Project Athlete

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    32,801
    Quote Originally Posted by kfrost06
    Civil Marriage Act was passed in July 20, 2005. Do you think 22 months is enough time to make a fair judgement on the implacations? The things people who are against it feared would happen are happening even in the short 22 months since the law.

    A human rights complaint was filed against The Bishop of Calgary, Fredrick Henry after voicing the Catholic Churchs opinion on gay marriage, using Section 319 (Hate Propaganda) section of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition they are also forcing military chaplians to marry gay soldiers. It is breaking churches apart over the issue of giving a wedding to same sex couples. It will not be long before Churches will be FORCED to marry gays or charged with descrimmination. It will not stop at marriage, they will never be satisfied until everyone is forced to except it even if it contradicts their own deeply held religious beliefs.

    P.S. Did you know the age of consent in Canada is 14? FACT. but your country is doing just fine with that. Yes, a grown man can legally marry a 14 year old boy in Canada because they are viewed as consenting adults. Hoggage_54, I speak for myself as well as the majority of Americans, we do not want that in this country.
    I find that hard to believe. I know a church didn't want to marry me because i wasn't going regularly. I'm Catholic and did all my communion and stuff when i was little. But since i wasn't active they didn't want to marry us. So seeing them forced to do anything is hard for me to believe.

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •