 |
| |
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
quote:
chegitz guevara:
Marrriage only has as much meaning as the contracting parties put into it. |
As long as you are including society as one of the three contracting parties. And here is where I think the homosexual community (and the kneejerk politically correct) have gotten off the track.
Marriage was never about two people promising to love each other to the end of time. It original meaning was the SOCIAL contract to produce and socialize children while protecting their rights (inheritance, etc).
This contract was necessarily bound on a sexual and exclusionary basis. Remember that if you have sex with an unmarried person you are simply a fornicator. Do it with a married person, however, and you are an adulterer - a sin so bad the Judeo-Christians put it on their Top 10 list.
Most societies have based an extensive number of obligations and privileges associated with being a family member. In the United States and Canada, for example, parents are held legally reponsible for damage willfully caused by their children. Likewise, children surrender most of their adult rights to their parents. Society, in turn, protects the marriage union by punishing those that intrude upon it, as well as elevating it (ie. tax benefits) beyond the status of just "some people living together".
quote:
MrFun:
Which is why everyone should have that equal right |
If you follow and agree with my reasoning above, then you see that marriage is NOT a right. It is a solemn and binding contract regarding the most precious of resources - our children.
Homosexuals have the right to live together and openly pledge their undying love, most certainly.
I am little uncertain (lack of knowledge) about the fitness of homosexual parents in raising what is most likely a heterosexual child.
But I vehemently object to entitling a self-serving gay activist movement with an institution they so clearly do not comprehend and are not even capable of supporting.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
quote:
Nice that your claims of victory involve pointing out typos rather than responding to actual arguments contained within. |
Considering that your post did not even contain an argument relevant to the thread, one would think that I actually AM winning this discussion - not that I ever made that claim.
I stand by my original argument. Why would marriage defined in your terms, a political means to an end, be based on the union of a man and a woman if not for their capability of producing children?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Considering that your post did not even contain an argument relevant to the thread |
If you opened you eyes, you would see there were plenty, including one which you yourself had to admit.
quote:
Why would marriage defined in your terms, a political means to an end, be based on the union of a man and a woman if not for their capability of producing children? |
As you have admitted, a decision to intermarry would have ended a war, no matter if any children were produced. I think I almost have you verbatim there. The linkage of the families by marriage was the important thing. Children would probably come, but if they didn't, it would go onto the next in line. Children were not the goal of marriage, it was to link clans or noble familes. Children were a secondary effect.
Besides by your definition of marriage, we'd have to prevent all sterile men and women from marriage. After all, if the original meaning was to produce children... well they can't do that. Does your argument mean that we have to have fertility tests before a marriage license can be granted?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Omni Rex Draconis
|
|
That is thrice with the "admitting my error" phrase; I have done no such thing. You are the one entering into the law profession, are you not? Debating tricks like those will serve you well, although I wish they wouldn't for such important things as legal decisons. Sigh...
Marriage as a political tool was founded upon the union's sanctioned generation of children. You evince this basis yourself in your text through the use of terms like "family" and "clan". The very identity of the political powers you mention are based on bloodlines!
So I redirect you back to my question. Why would this political action be based on the joining of a woman, who likely held no political power of her own though her family did, to a man?
As for sterile people, it is only recent advances in technology that has enabled us to positively identify them as such. The progression of law is usually towards the expansion, not reduction, of rights so I see no popular movement in that direction.
The law does demand, however, that the applicants for a marriage license not be close relatives. This makes sense in an institution founded upon the production of children. Your political definition would more often prefer the close intermarriages as a method of conserving power. Whence the discrepancy?
Welcome back to the debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
That is thrice with the "admitting my error" phrase; I have done no such thing. |
Of course you have. It is not my fault if you are so dense as not to see it  .
You have said that a marriage which doesn't produce children would end a war. You've said it. What else do you need?
quote:
Why would this political action be based on the joining of a woman, who likely held no political power of her own though her family did, to a man? |
Why not? That was how it worked in those days, you were a member of a clan or noble family. Joining together of two people of that group was symbolically important. It was a showing that ill will was put behind, because the families allowed a bond to be betwee them.
As you said (again) if they didn't have children that didn't matter. The war would not begin again if both died of old age with no child.
quote:
As for sterile people, it is only recent advances in technology that has enabled us to positively identify them as such. The progression of law is usually towards the expansion, not reduction, of rights so I see no popular movement in that direction. |
OH HO! So since progression of law is to expansion of rights, sterile people cannot be denied their right to marry. Well the way I see it progression of the law is to the expansion of rights, therefore there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry.
quote:
The law does demand, however, that the applicants for a marriage license not be close relatives. This makes sense in an institution founded upon the production of children. Your political definition would more often prefer the close intermarriages as a method of conserving power. Whence the discrepancy? |
Indeed, and some families, like the Hapsburgs did indeed engage in close intermarriages for that reason. For most of human history marrying your cousin was not something frowned upon. In fact, it was a good thing to marry a cousin.
You are backtracking. You say the law does demand non-incestuous marriages and that proves that it was for the production of children. However, in the past, marrying your relatives was not frowned upon. You could marry your cousin until marriage was changed.
quote:
Welcome back to the debate. |
I've never left it, amongst your claiming victory over typos when you were shown to be entirely ignorant of the laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Doesn't answer the question. One does not get to be a member of a clan or family unless married or born into it. It is was not just two people randomly selected to for a "symbolic" joining - they were man and woman. ONCE AGAIN, I ask why? |
Because they are then linked by the act of marriage. It was not merely the joining of man and women, but the joining of families. Like YOU said, the war was over after the marriage. The war didn't restart if no children were born.
quote:
Non sequitur. There is no reason to deny my right to steal and murder, because that is an expansion of my rights? |
Blundered into that one, didn't you? The right of stealing and murdering is a curtailing of someone else's rights as well as expanding yours. Whose rights are curtailed if gay's marry?
quote:
But "your claiming victory over typos when you were shown to be entirely ignorant of the laws" is getting very tiresome. Read what I posted, including the subsequent correction, and think on it a bit. |
It's quite obvious that you were avoiding the fact that you were utterly wrong about the law and served to deflect that wrongness by pointing out a typo and pointing the other way... at smilies (well deserved may I add). Instead of responding, you said, haw haw, you spelt wrong! So, I think my description is apt. You don't feel the need to accept your incorrect view of how the law works, though it does show your biases very keenly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2005 22:30
.......... 
).
|