Posted on 06/01/2015 8:51:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Is government discriminating against homosexual couples when it denies them marriage, just as it discriminated against African Americans with segregation? The arguments assume that government creates and defines marriage. That assumption is reinforced with every public referendum, legislative act or court order concerning it, but for thousands of years, no one defined marriage, yet everyone knew what it was. Did society define marriage, perhaps based on the writings of bigoted men, to erroneously excluded homosexual couples? Does marriage exist absent society, with the concept of homosexual marriage being a collective delusion? Who or what defines marriage, and does that definition include homosexual couples? To answer this assertion, we must inspect the natural state, absent society, religion and government.
To survive as an individual, one must have sustenance and shelter. The survival of a species requires reproduction. The activities of gathering food, building and maintaining shelters and reproducing the species all consume energy. Particularly for humans, the task of reproduction is energetically intensive. For the last few months of pregnancy, a woman's productivity is significantly impaired, and this impairment continues for many years after birth, due to the demands of raising the child. Reproduction impairs productivity and increases consumption. It is safe to say that in the wild, a human woman living alone would be unable to bear or raise a child. The species known as "human" would not exist.
The struggles of life can be eased through the division of labor.
The woman, with her reduced mobility, can perform the tasks of maintaining the shelter, reproducing the species and perhaps farming some food. The man, freed to venture longer distances, can find greater qualities or quantities of food and other resources.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Is government discriminating against homosexual couples...
We all have the exact same marriage rights. Every single one of us. There is no discrimination. The problem is that they WANT do do something and call it marriage, and the rest of us don’t want to.
It’s like saying our beastiality laws are discriminatory against people who WANT to commit beastiality. But they are not. The law applies equally to everyone.
Same with the marriage laws.
The other fact is consummation. Homosexuals physically can’t, unless you confuse the sexual organs with digestive ones.
The best indicators, you know, the ones homosexuals, liberals, black racists like to use are STATISTICS. It seems to me they ought to be willing to provide the statistics on these loving, caring relationships they’ve been able to establish and maintain in those states where they have been granted that legal protection of marriage.
Publish some statistics on the inherent longevity and efficacy of these relationships. Publish the dissolution rages we’ve experienced thus far. After all, they might lend credence to the claim....I dare you all to do it.
Can a church deny 2 men a marriage ceremony?
This is the question lurking in the shadows.
The one indicator whether something will benefit society overall, is ask the question: "What would be the result if everyone did it?"
The obvious answer would be extinction within a generation or so.
yes
Do you mean is that called a marriage ?
Nope ...
They're using language to confuse people
Even though people have ALWAYS known the language was misused ... no one seemed to care that HEALTH CARE and PAYING FOR IT were two entirely different subjects and that 'healthcare' was the word used when it is the paying for it that everyone was concerned about.
The USA promises the best health care to whomever shows up at the door ... even if providing that care breaks the hospital .... we still do it ............. because no one paid for it.
And this gay marriage bullshit is designed to break America ... who was founded on the family, and queers cannot reproduce ... so all they can do is break our normalcy 'bank'
Rome fell because she was no longer 'normal'
A simple fact, not everyone is "free" to marry ANYONE else of their choosing.
(A) must be a member of the opposite sex
(B) must not presently be married
(C) must not be a close relation
(D) must be above a certain age established by state law
So Tom can marry Susan but George cannot marry Susan (unless Tom divorces her).
The sex positive proponents don't care, if two people are sexually attracted they should hook up, regardless of society's "old" rules.
Does Homosexual Marriage Truly Exist?
Yep! ! Just like “children” of ‘THEM’ exist.....In their damnable dreams.....
Religion says ‘sinful.’
Secular,’Mama NATURE’S MISTAKES’..either way...t’aint real folks..
My thought is that a birth canal isn’t a one-way street.....Okay... I immediately thought back to “Einbahn strasse” from my time as a GI in Germany.
But this brought back more pressing questions I’d had there.
What is the popularity of this street “Einbahnstrasse” as a name and why in the heck were there so many of them? Was “Einbahn” Germany’s Martin Luther King?
That brought back other questions. Where is this town called Ausfahrt? It’s a puzzlement. Do all the autobahns have go to Ausfahrt?
You posted exactly the list I planned on posting in a follow up. It’s the core issue here and one many don’t get.
Sodomite “marriage” is a sham marriage and is just another way to work the system.
What is to prevent two straight men from getting “married” to take advantage of apartment rents which are often less for married couples than for two unmarried single renters?
They get a discount being “married” yet can still date women. If they decide to marry a woman, do they then need to get a “divorce”? I bet they will treat their same-sex “marriage” as a big joke to be ignored. If they marry a woman will they then be a “bigamist”?
What is to prevent an old man from “marrying” a young man? When the old man dies the young man gets the survivor’s benefits of the old man. I bet lots of old men will suddenly “kick off” after such “marriages”.
Too much leeway for fraud in such fake “marriages”.
I’ve said my entire adult life (I’m 61) that what is legal is not necessarily moral and what is moral is not necessarily legal.
And now we have “same sex marriage”. It may be legal, but it is not moral.
And I have to add a twist: There are “real” definitions of words and “legal” definitions of words. They are usually the same, but not always. Homosexual “marriage” would be a good example of this. In many states, two people of the same sex can “legally” marry. But they can’t marry in a “Christian” church. The core of the teaching of Christianity precludes it. The two are mutually exclusive. You can not have a homosexual christian marriage. The two are mutually exclusive.
but for thousands of years, no one defined marriage
Say what? Who is this "American Thinker" who wrote this? An atheist? A liberaltarian? At any rate, it must be someone who doesn't know much about God and the Bible. GOD DEFINES MARRIAGE, and its been known for "thousands of years." The Bible has been around for thousands of years. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Actually, NO!
Two men are utterly incapable of engaging in sexual intercourse with each other. They may engage in one or more sorts of buggery or sodomy, but such acts are not to be confused with sexual intercourse.
Has God resigned? Has nature changed its nature?
Then the answer is NO.
There is no discrimination. Marriage is about stability for the offspring of their union. Homosexuals can’t produce babies, so marriage is meaningless for them.
I thought marriage was a religious term. Cannot a church refuse to marry someone? I know a pastor who refused a couple because they had a child out of wedlock. No one sued the pastor or the church.
So, of course, a pastor can refuse to marry a gay couple and be within the law.
“You must realize that at its inception and in continual practice marriage is simply a license to procrate. Without this and the resulting children the institution of marriage would not be necessary nor would it exist.” — Captain Compassion
“Men married earley-usually by twenty; not through romantic love but for the sound puropses of having a helpmate, useful children, and a healthy sexual life. In the words of the Roman wedding ceremony, marrage was liberum quaerendorum causa-for the sake of getting children; on the farm, children, like wives, were economic assets, not biological toys.” — Will Durant “Caesar and Christ”
“Marriage is a social institution for the perpetuation of the species. Anything else that marriage is or can be is only vanity.” — Captain Compassion
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.