Full Version: New Hampshire to establish civil unions
Sorry for the delay
And yet the legally defined term prior to 1970, still did not allow for homosexual marriage though there was no ban or law against same-sex marriage.
Not only that, let's say the legal definition of family was: people related by blood or marriage. What would stop a person with AB negative blood from claiming all people with AB negative blood is his/her family, taking notes from Entspeak's "don't forget to specify the obvious" rulebook, because the law is unspecific on how the "blood" needs to "relate".
And what does this mean?
You take the institute of marriage and incorporate it into law.
It's not that I don't understand how right's are protected in this county Entspeak, I just disagree with you.
If I were to yell "Fire, fire" were my right's violated?? Many would say "no". Why?? Because the the right to freedom of speech never translated to mean "the right to say ANYTHING you want"
The right to marry is the same. You can easily find language such as
"the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions"
because the concept of same-sex marriage, has not developed. When you are dealing with something that innately involve both genders people are going to use non-gender specific terms, like persons. You don't exclude something that is already excluded by nature. I don't need to use language to exclude same sex marriage if the concept of marriage needs both genders. Because the fact that they are the same sex is what excludes them.
You have the right to marry anyone within the concept of marriage is what the Judge was saying. So you must go to the concept of marriage at that time if you are going to use his words. Again you want to change the concept of marriage.
ummm here we go again
Let's not, I repeat let's NOT call laws that deal with marriage the terms of a civil marriage contract. Let's just stop that there, unless we have to go into what a contract is. Where are these laws posted on your contract. Are they in your vows?? I mean I actually had to go go into my lock box and pull out my marriage certificate.... nope... nothing about marriage laws, nothing about sodomy.
You do this time and time again... you frame the debate by stretching the base to mean something that i does not. So now you are going to say look how these laws have changed, thus the contract between marriages have changed, but the premise that marriage laws are part of the contract between married people... ridiculous at best.
The law makes smoking weed illegal, I never told them i wasn't going to do it. Show us this "contract"... not the laws... the contract. And taking a page from YOUR book. I don't see that specified in the legal definition.
I always got what you are saying, but you didn't get what I was saying,( except the whole forcibly allowing for thing) thus I made an analogy. I read what you said, I understand what you are saying, with the colors. I understood without the colors. It stopped being my analogy when you made it to suit your purposes.
For instance.... can you get 50% of one person and 100 percent of another person to get married??? No... Does one have to alter humans using.
What about your little cmky process. Do you understand the process??? If you do then you know it is about the illussion of color. If you place certain colors side by side in microscopic increments the human eye will perceive a color. It did not create that color, because if you took a microscope you would see that magenta and yellow.
My analogy was there to clarify, your analogy was like everything else.... a stretching exercise in obfuscation. You think if you muddle a little of this and a little of that you make marriage this genderless institution that is denied to homosexuals.
See, that's why I wrote the analogy. The whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender., even before it evolved to monogamy. Now the term can further evolve to include same-sex couples... but that requires what entspeak?? Change?? So it is not necessary for the union to be a man and woman if you want to CHANGE it to include same sex couples.
Your frustrated???
You back it up. You start using some common sense here. Procreation WAS happening. Procreation was NOT in jeopardy. I say again, procreation was NOT in jeopardy. So why would procreation be the reason they made sodomy laws. Non-procreative sex had NO detrimental effect on society. None, Zilch, Zero.
So don't talk to me about lack of will in understanding and ability to look beyond the surface...
That's exactly what you are saying. look if you are saying
"Droop, the reason they gave is procreation" I could agree. (Kind of like the reason they gave us for going to war in Iraq was WMD) If you are saying "Droop they banned all sex that was non-conducive to procreation" again we are in agreement.
But why did they make sodomy illegal. What was the reason??
My answer:
Icky
Your answer:
It was not conducive to procreation.
First your argument is circular. What is sodomy?? Sodomy is sex not conducive to procreation. Why was sex not conducive to procreation banned.... (your answer) because it was not conducive to procreation. Secondly, if your not saying that the what you are giving as a reason makes sense, then don't give it as a reason.
The reason I say "icky" is because I don't just look at the surface of things... unlike some of us who project
There is no good reason why sodomy was banned but the ickiness of it. The only way "not coducive procreation" argument makes sense is if sodomy was causing a lack of procreation. Whish was not happening. Therefore, "icky" is all you have left that DOES make sense.
Don't tell me to back something up, when all you are doing is throwing out some quote that you will later back off with a statement like "I'm not saying it makes sense." Don't put a quote out there, to back up your argument, and YOU don't even think it makes sense. That's insane!
Actually, Entspeak my lack of comprehension is my sarcastic way of saying, "you don't have a clue what you are saying." The law did not force couples to allow for procreation. If couples wanted to do foreplay they did it.
If what you said actually made sense you would be able to reword it.
The question is not why they would allow, but how did they deny Gays prior to 1970's. That is the question. Your answer is/was "sodomy laws" However, we KNOW there was no ban, there were no laws against same-sex marriage, there was no prerequisite to procreate, there was no prerequisite to even have sex, and according to you the definition of marriage at the time was gender neutral.
So there was absolutely nothing preventing or denying homosexuals the ability to marry. So why didn't they. Because the concept of same-gender marriage did not exist in any fashion that deserved any legal consideration.
Grendal
Do you have a complex that demands you say something, even if something is nothing?? I'm no mod, but this is like your third nonproductive "one liner" post in a row. This is a debate board, you know??
QUOTE
What? The term? So you can define the term... of course your definition of the term is different from the one held under law in this country prior to the 1970's. I can define terms, too. Family: people related by blood or marriage. I can show the history of that term. This does not prevent the government from defining it differently in the law to include roommates not related by blood or marriage. And in terms of the law, their definition would be the one used and not mine.
And yet the legally defined term prior to 1970, still did not allow for homosexual marriage though there was no ban or law against same-sex marriage.
Not only that, let's say the legal definition of family was: people related by blood or marriage. What would stop a person with AB negative blood from claiming all people with AB negative blood is his/her family, taking notes from Entspeak's "don't forget to specify the obvious" rulebook, because the law is unspecific on how the "blood" needs to "relate".
QUOTE
QUOTE
Civil marriage is codified marriage.
And what does this mean?
You take the institute of marriage and incorporate it into law.
QUOTE
They went on to ultimately decide that the government did not have the constitutional ability to restrict this choice based on race.
The existence of government parameters or boundaries restricts or infringes upon a right, but a restriction or infringement does not mean the right does not exist.
I added the specifics so that you would have a couple that, under current law could choose to marry. Why did I feel that was necessary? So that you couldn't qualify your answers by adding existing parameters and boundaries. The question relates to the creation by the State of a new law that prevents these specific people and others like them from marrying and whether such a law would be constitutional.
Because, as the justices stated in Goodridge, "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions..."
This is why I said that you have no concept of how rights are protected in this country, droop. No right is completely inviolable. We have the right to free speech, but it is not protected to the extent that the State can't arrest you for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Just because a right has boundaries and parameters, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. It means that the government has placed boundaries and parameters on the right - some of which may be unconstitutional. Interracial marriage bans, for example, were about the right to choose to marry a person of a different race... it was ruled unconstitutional to place a restriction on the choice based on race alone.
The existence of government parameters or boundaries restricts or infringes upon a right, but a restriction or infringement does not mean the right does not exist.
I added the specifics so that you would have a couple that, under current law could choose to marry. Why did I feel that was necessary? So that you couldn't qualify your answers by adding existing parameters and boundaries. The question relates to the creation by the State of a new law that prevents these specific people and others like them from marrying and whether such a law would be constitutional.
Because, as the justices stated in Goodridge, "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions..."
This is why I said that you have no concept of how rights are protected in this country, droop. No right is completely inviolable. We have the right to free speech, but it is not protected to the extent that the State can't arrest you for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Just because a right has boundaries and parameters, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. It means that the government has placed boundaries and parameters on the right - some of which may be unconstitutional. Interracial marriage bans, for example, were about the right to choose to marry a person of a different race... it was ruled unconstitutional to place a restriction on the choice based on race alone.
It's not that I don't understand how right's are protected in this county Entspeak, I just disagree with you.
If I were to yell "Fire, fire" were my right's violated?? Many would say "no". Why?? Because the the right to freedom of speech never translated to mean "the right to say ANYTHING you want"
The right to marry is the same. You can easily find language such as
"the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions"
because the concept of same-sex marriage, has not developed. When you are dealing with something that innately involve both genders people are going to use non-gender specific terms, like persons. You don't exclude something that is already excluded by nature. I don't need to use language to exclude same sex marriage if the concept of marriage needs both genders. Because the fact that they are the same sex is what excludes them.
You have the right to marry anyone within the concept of marriage is what the Judge was saying. So you must go to the concept of marriage at that time if you are going to use his words. Again you want to change the concept of marriage.
QUOTE
Sorry, had to jump to this. They never changed the marriage contract? Ummm... Really? Well, what makes up a civil marriage contract? Well, you agree to marry and abide by certain rules... we'll call them, oh... laws... aw, heck, we'll call them marriage laws. These are the laws that make up the civil marriage contract.
Really? Well, what makes up a civil marriage contract? Well, you agree to marry and abide by certain rules... we'll call them, oh... laws... aw, heck, we'll call them marriage laws. These are the laws that make up the civil marriage contract.ummm here we go again
Let's not, I repeat let's NOT call laws that deal with marriage the terms of a civil marriage contract. Let's just stop that there, unless we have to go into what a contract is. Where are these laws posted on your contract. Are they in your vows?? I mean I actually had to go go into my lock box and pull out my marriage certificate.... nope... nothing about marriage laws, nothing about sodomy.You do this time and time again... you frame the debate by stretching the base to mean something that i does not. So now you are going to say look how these laws have changed, thus the contract between marriages have changed, but the premise that marriage laws are part of the contract between married people... ridiculous at best.
QUOTE
Now, some time ago... when you agreed to marry, you were allowed to have sex, but also agreed not to use contraception when having sex.
Also, some time ago... when you agreed to be married, you agreed not to engage in any other type of sexual activity except penetrative vaginal intercourse and your marriage was not "complete" until said act occurrred.
Which of these aspects of the civil marriage contract exist today? Well, in some states you can challenge paternity when you are married, so that one still exists in most states, I believe... but none of the others do.
So, the civil marriage contract changed.
Also, some time ago... when you agreed to be married, you agreed not to engage in any other type of sexual activity except penetrative vaginal intercourse and your marriage was not "complete" until said act occurrred.
Which of these aspects of the civil marriage contract exist today? Well, in some states you can challenge paternity when you are married, so that one still exists in most states, I believe... but none of the others do.
So, the civil marriage contract changed.
The law makes smoking weed illegal, I never told them i wasn't going to do it. Show us this "contract"... not the laws... the contract. And taking a page from YOUR book. I don't see that specified in the legal definition.
QUOTE
Ah, Plato's Cave in color theory.
Well, what if I were to tell you that orange was a combination of red and green. Can orange be a combination of red and green? Yes, Socrates. Would I be changing what orange was... would I be changing the concept of orange? No, Socrates. Would I be changing the fundamental nature of what orange is? No, Socrates.
Orange would still be orange if it was a combination of red and yellow or if it was a combination of red and green or if it was a combination of magenta and yellow.
So, I don't think your color analogy is going to work in your favor... why? ...to be continued, below
.....
Well, I'm telling you red and green is orange. I'm telling you magenta and yellow is orange. I can do that without changing the concept of orange. Because I understand that fundamentally... essentially... orange is a color created through the combination of two primary colors. Depending on how I wish to express the concept orange, I can change the required primary colors and still retain the concept and the fundamental nature of orange as a color: 100% Red and 50% green through the emission of light... Magenta and yellow through CMYK printing process.
And I have the right to express my concept of the color orange using which ever of these primary color combinations that I choose - subject, of course, to appropriate government restriction.
To summarize using your analogy:
You are claiming that the combination of red and green can't be called orange, because, you say, orange is only a combination of red and yellow. I ask why does it have to be red and yellow... what it is it about red and yellow that makes this combination fundamental to the concept of orange such that red and green can't be orange? You say well, that when man began combining colors, light bulbs and printing presses didn't exist... so orange was never a combination of red and green or magenta and yellow. The medium used required combinations of red and yellow to make orange. Red and yellow were fundamental components of the color orange. If red and yellow was fundamental then, it is now. Well, people began combining red and green light emission and orange was the result. People began combining magenta and yellow in a printing process and orange was the result. So, it appears that what is fundamental about orange as a color is that it is a color created through the combination of two primary colors... not that it is a color created through the combination of red and yellow. This is not to say that there won't be primary color combinations that fail to create the color orange... but the fundamental nature of orange as a color is not limited to and does not need to be restricted to red and yellow despite the long history of red and yellow as the combination used to create the color orange.
Is it necessary that I restrict my choice for expressing the concept of orange based on the primary colors I use to express it?
To apply constitutional law to this analogy... the ability to choose the manner in which I express the color orange is a fundamental right. Under constitutional law, my choice in how I express the concept of orange can only be restricted if it is related to a valid interest and the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill that interest. If the choice is constitutionally restricted, this doesn't mean the right does not exist... it means it's restricted... infringed upon to some extent.
For example: You say, well... the aim is to create an orange painting using oil based paints (there is a rule that states that art may only be created through painting. Another rule states that oil based paints are the only items that can be used in the creation of art)... expressing the color orange using primary colors other than red and yellow would not create the color orange in a painting using oil based paints. It is therefore necessary to restrict the choice of how one expresses the concept orange to using the combination of red and yellow oil paints... as such, red and green light emission would be constitutionally excluded.
But, if you say: the aim is to create a piece of art using the color orange (the rules above have been removed, for example). Is the restriction to the combination of red and yellow constitutional in this case? Well, the restriction is related to a valid interest - the creation of a piece of art using the color orange. But is the restriction necessary? No. You can create art through the emission of light (just ask James Turrell). As such, it would be unconstitutional to prevent someone from expressing the concept orange through the use of red and green... the restriction to a combination of red and yellow pigment is not necessary in order to fulfill the valid interest of creating a piece of art using the color orange.
So, you have a group of artists hoping to exhibit at a gallery:
In general, the gallery has established rules for exhibit curators for how they are to handle artists. All artists have a right to choose the manner in which they express color... be it through paint or light or printing process. The curators for the gallery can only restrict that choice if the restriction is related to an interest of the exhibit and if doing so is necessary in order to fulfill the interest of the exhibit. Part of the curators job is to see to it that the interests of the exhibit are fulfilled.
This particular exhibit deals with the color orange in oil paints.
The curator for this exhibit says that, in the interest of the exhibit, all expression of the color orange must be acheived through oil paints. As such it is necessary to restrict the choice of primary colors for mixing to red and yellow oil paint. Okay. Sounds reasonable. The printing process artists and the light artists complain a bit, but it is necessary... so, they abide by the rules and are excluded from the exhibit. But the curator points to one painter and says... ummm... you can only participate in this exhibit if you express the color orange through light emission using the combination of 100% red light and 50% green light. If you express the color orange through this particular combination of light emission, your piece can be included in the exhibit.
The light artists, say... whoa!!! But you said it was necessary for artists to use red and yellow oil based paint to express orange. The curator says, yes... it is. The light artists reply, how can it be necessary to use red and yellow oil based paint to express orange in order to participate in the exhibit if you are allowing this particular artist to use the combination of red and green light emission? Obviously banning the choice to use a combination of red and green light emission is not necessary if you are going to allow someone to use it in the exhibit.
Get it?
Well, what if I were to tell you that orange was a combination of red and green. Can orange be a combination of red and green? Yes, Socrates. Would I be changing what orange was... would I be changing the concept of orange? No, Socrates. Would I be changing the fundamental nature of what orange is? No, Socrates.
Orange would still be orange if it was a combination of red and yellow or if it was a combination of red and green or if it was a combination of magenta and yellow.
So, I don't think your color analogy is going to work in your favor... why? ...to be continued, below
.....
Well, I'm telling you red and green is orange. I'm telling you magenta and yellow is orange. I can do that without changing the concept of orange. Because I understand that fundamentally... essentially... orange is a color created through the combination of two primary colors. Depending on how I wish to express the concept orange, I can change the required primary colors and still retain the concept and the fundamental nature of orange as a color: 100% Red and 50% green through the emission of light... Magenta and yellow through CMYK printing process.
And I have the right to express my concept of the color orange using which ever of these primary color combinations that I choose - subject, of course, to appropriate government restriction.
To summarize using your analogy:
You are claiming that the combination of red and green can't be called orange, because, you say, orange is only a combination of red and yellow. I ask why does it have to be red and yellow... what it is it about red and yellow that makes this combination fundamental to the concept of orange such that red and green can't be orange? You say well, that when man began combining colors, light bulbs and printing presses didn't exist... so orange was never a combination of red and green or magenta and yellow. The medium used required combinations of red and yellow to make orange. Red and yellow were fundamental components of the color orange. If red and yellow was fundamental then, it is now. Well, people began combining red and green light emission and orange was the result. People began combining magenta and yellow in a printing process and orange was the result. So, it appears that what is fundamental about orange as a color is that it is a color created through the combination of two primary colors... not that it is a color created through the combination of red and yellow. This is not to say that there won't be primary color combinations that fail to create the color orange... but the fundamental nature of orange as a color is not limited to and does not need to be restricted to red and yellow despite the long history of red and yellow as the combination used to create the color orange.
Is it necessary that I restrict my choice for expressing the concept of orange based on the primary colors I use to express it?
To apply constitutional law to this analogy... the ability to choose the manner in which I express the color orange is a fundamental right. Under constitutional law, my choice in how I express the concept of orange can only be restricted if it is related to a valid interest and the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill that interest. If the choice is constitutionally restricted, this doesn't mean the right does not exist... it means it's restricted... infringed upon to some extent.
For example: You say, well... the aim is to create an orange painting using oil based paints (there is a rule that states that art may only be created through painting. Another rule states that oil based paints are the only items that can be used in the creation of art)... expressing the color orange using primary colors other than red and yellow would not create the color orange in a painting using oil based paints. It is therefore necessary to restrict the choice of how one expresses the concept orange to using the combination of red and yellow oil paints... as such, red and green light emission would be constitutionally excluded.
But, if you say: the aim is to create a piece of art using the color orange (the rules above have been removed, for example). Is the restriction to the combination of red and yellow constitutional in this case? Well, the restriction is related to a valid interest - the creation of a piece of art using the color orange. But is the restriction necessary? No. You can create art through the emission of light (just ask James Turrell). As such, it would be unconstitutional to prevent someone from expressing the concept orange through the use of red and green... the restriction to a combination of red and yellow pigment is not necessary in order to fulfill the valid interest of creating a piece of art using the color orange.
So, you have a group of artists hoping to exhibit at a gallery:
In general, the gallery has established rules for exhibit curators for how they are to handle artists. All artists have a right to choose the manner in which they express color... be it through paint or light or printing process. The curators for the gallery can only restrict that choice if the restriction is related to an interest of the exhibit and if doing so is necessary in order to fulfill the interest of the exhibit. Part of the curators job is to see to it that the interests of the exhibit are fulfilled.
This particular exhibit deals with the color orange in oil paints.
The curator for this exhibit says that, in the interest of the exhibit, all expression of the color orange must be acheived through oil paints. As such it is necessary to restrict the choice of primary colors for mixing to red and yellow oil paint. Okay. Sounds reasonable. The printing process artists and the light artists complain a bit, but it is necessary... so, they abide by the rules and are excluded from the exhibit. But the curator points to one painter and says... ummm... you can only participate in this exhibit if you express the color orange through light emission using the combination of 100% red light and 50% green light. If you express the color orange through this particular combination of light emission, your piece can be included in the exhibit.
The light artists, say... whoa!!! But you said it was necessary for artists to use red and yellow oil based paint to express orange. The curator says, yes... it is. The light artists reply, how can it be necessary to use red and yellow oil based paint to express orange in order to participate in the exhibit if you are allowing this particular artist to use the combination of red and green light emission? Obviously banning the choice to use a combination of red and green light emission is not necessary if you are going to allow someone to use it in the exhibit.
Get it?
I always got what you are saying, but you didn't get what I was saying,( except the whole forcibly allowing for thing) thus I made an analogy. I read what you said, I understand what you are saying, with the colors. I understood without the colors. It stopped being my analogy when you made it to suit your purposes.
For instance.... can you get 50% of one person and 100 percent of another person to get married??? No... Does one have to alter humans using.
What about your little cmky process. Do you understand the process??? If you do then you know it is about the illussion of color. If you place certain colors side by side in microscopic increments the human eye will perceive a color. It did not create that color, because if you took a microscope you would see that magenta and yellow.
My analogy was there to clarify, your analogy was like everything else.... a stretching exercise in obfuscation. You think if you muddle a little of this and a little of that you make marriage this genderless institution that is denied to homosexuals.
QUOTE
So, why is it necessary for the union to be a man and a woman?
See, that's why I wrote the analogy. The whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender., even before it evolved to monogamy. Now the term can further evolve to include same-sex couples... but that requires what entspeak?? Change?? So it is not necessary for the union to be a man and woman if you want to CHANGE it to include same sex couples.
QUOTE
Okay.
Let's focus first on this morality issue.
Why is sodomy considered immoral? Why is it considered vile (icky)? Why is it considered unnatural?
Why does the church feel that it is immoral?
I must admit my frustration at your lack of will or ability to look beyond the surface to what actually lies behind the laws in this country.
Let's focus first on this morality issue.
Why is sodomy considered immoral? Why is it considered vile (icky)? Why is it considered unnatural?
Why does the church feel that it is immoral?
I must admit my frustration at your lack of will or ability to look beyond the surface to what actually lies behind the laws in this country.
Your frustrated???
QUOTE
So, if you are going to make an argument, droop... back it up. You haven't done anything of the sort. Provide a link. Show me that the government banned sodomy simply because it was "icky" and that the ickiness had nothing to do with the fact that it was not conducive to procreation.
You back it up. You start using some common sense here. Procreation WAS happening. Procreation was NOT in jeopardy. I say again, procreation was NOT in jeopardy. So why would procreation be the reason they made sodomy laws. Non-procreative sex had NO detrimental effect on society. None, Zilch, Zero.
So don't talk to me about lack of will in understanding and ability to look beyond the surface...
QUOTE
Now, I never stated that the government's position (or those who held the same moral view) was rational or made sense. I simply stated that this was the case.
The courts view sodomy as any sexual act that is not conducive to procreation. They do not view sodomy as any sexual act that is "icky".
The courts view sodomy as any sexual act that is not conducive to procreation. They do not view sodomy as any sexual act that is "icky".
That's exactly what you are saying. look if you are saying"Droop, the reason they gave is procreation" I could agree. (Kind of like the reason they gave us for going to war in Iraq was WMD) If you are saying "Droop they banned all sex that was non-conducive to procreation" again we are in agreement.
But why did they make sodomy illegal. What was the reason??
My answer:
Icky
Your answer:
It was not conducive to procreation.
First your argument is circular. What is sodomy?? Sodomy is sex not conducive to procreation. Why was sex not conducive to procreation banned.... (your answer) because it was not conducive to procreation. Secondly, if your not saying that the what you are giving as a reason makes sense, then don't give it as a reason.
The reason I say "icky" is because I don't just look at the surface of things... unlike some of us who project
There is no good reason why sodomy was banned but the ickiness of it. The only way "not coducive procreation" argument makes sense is if sodomy was causing a lack of procreation. Whish was not happening. Therefore, "icky" is all you have left that DOES make sense.
Don't tell me to back something up, when all you are doing is throwing out some quote that you will later back off with a statement like "I'm not saying it makes sense." Don't put a quote out there, to back up your argument, and YOU don't even think it makes sense. That's insane!
QUOTE
Okay. And if you didn't want to be limited in your capacity to have sex... could you legally have whatever type of sex you wanted? Or were you, in fact, compelled, under force of law, to only engage in sex that was conducive to procreation?
Your lack of comprehension is your own.
Your lack of comprehension is your own.
Actually, Entspeak my lack of comprehension is my sarcastic way of saying, "you don't have a clue what you are saying." The law did not force couples to allow for procreation. If couples wanted to do foreplay they did it.
QUOTE
“It is true, of course, that no married couple in recent memory has actually been arrested or prosecuted for committing sodomy,” ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser said.
If what you said actually made sense you would be able to reword it.
QUOTE
As far as the consummating marriage is concerned. I can find no law or instance in which the state could void a marriage that was not consummated. But I can find evidence that a marriage was not complete without consummation. But was the government unaware of the concept of consummating a marriage? That having sex "sealed the deal", made the marriage union complete? That consummation was considered an essential component of the marriage ceremony? I'd argue that the government was aware of the concept of consummation. As such, it is reasonable for the government to assume that people wishing to be married will complete the ceremony? If a marriage was considered incomplete and voidable without consummation... why would the government allow a couple incapable of legally consummating to marry?
The question is not why they would allow, but how did they deny Gays prior to 1970's. That is the question. Your answer is/was "sodomy laws" However, we KNOW there was no ban, there were no laws against same-sex marriage, there was no prerequisite to procreate, there was no prerequisite to even have sex, and according to you the definition of marriage at the time was gender neutral.
So there was absolutely nothing preventing or denying homosexuals the ability to marry. So why didn't they. Because the concept of same-gender marriage did not exist in any fashion that deserved any legal consideration.
Grendal
QUOTE
Seeing the quality of the arguments against equality, fairness, and basic human decency, one has to wonder how this is even a debate. Look at what certain people have said in this thread and realize that is what you are talking about "compromising" with. 
Do you have a complex that demands you say something, even if something is nothing?? I'm no mod, but this is like your third nonproductive "one liner" post in a row. This is a debate board, you know??
I'll address more of your nonsense tomorrow.
This first:
Well... you have to be able to engage in the contract. That is specified in the definition. A marriage that is voidable never occurred when voided. Therein lies the belief that a consummated union completed a marriage... sealed the deal... ultimately bound the two people in the contract. How would a same-sex couple be able to consummate a marriage with sodomy laws in place?
As far as the marriage contract is concerned, I had some links but they were lost thanks to my browser... so I'll have to post them tomorrow.
This first:
QUOTE
The question is not why they would allow, but how did they deny Gays prior to 1970's. That is the question. Your answer is/was "sodomy laws" However, we KNOW there was no ban, there were no laws against same-sex marriage, there was no prerequisite to procreate, there was no prerequisite to even have sex, and according to you the definition of marriage at the time was gender neutral.
Well... you have to be able to engage in the contract. That is specified in the definition. A marriage that is voidable never occurred when voided. Therein lies the belief that a consummated union completed a marriage... sealed the deal... ultimately bound the two people in the contract. How would a same-sex couple be able to consummate a marriage with sodomy laws in place?
As far as the marriage contract is concerned, I had some links but they were lost thanks to my browser... so I'll have to post them tomorrow.
QUOTE
I'll address more of your nonsense tomorrow.
This from the guy who thinks the government needed to take action to allow us procreate.QUOTE
Well... you have to be able to engage in the contract. That is specified in the definition. A marriage that is voidable never occurred when voided. Therein lies the belief that a consummated union completed a marriage... sealed the deal... ultimately bound the two people in the contract. How would a same-sex couple be able to consummate a marriage with sodomy laws in place?
They wouldn't consummate the marriage. Back then I don't even think it was called sex unless it was coitus. That's a new fad. But again, there was no requirement to consummate the marriage. So stop with this strawman. If there was no requirement to have sex to get married or be married, then laws that prevented a certain kind of sex can not be the reason why Gays did not marry prior to 1970.
So give us a reason that makes sense... oh that's right... you're not saying the reasons have to make sense.
And stop pulling things out the hat. Just because something can be voided does not make it is invalid. It means it could be invalid.
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 31 2007, 11:44 PM) 
Do you have a complex that demands you say something, even if something is nothing?? I'm no mod, but this is like your third nonproductive "one liner" post in a row. This is a debate board, you know?
INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVEDThe simple matter is that the Supreme court in the decision for Loving V. Virginia stated that the right to marry the person of our choice is a basic human right. They could have easily used the exact same facile illogic you are using and insisted the Lovings were permitted to marry people of their own race.
I find it disgusting that this issue is treated as if there were any debate. I used up all my patience long ago when it comes to this issue. Once again, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy. You are too much of a coward to debate your real reasons for opposing equality and basic human decency, so you lie and use logical fallacies. Some of us find this infuriating.
By the way, it's spelled Grendel.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 1 2007, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE
I'll address more of your nonsense tomorrow.
This from the guy who thinks the government needed to take action to allow us procreate.Never stated anything of the kind. The fact that you keep saying this only serves to illustrate that, despite your statements to the contrary, you do not understand what I'm saying.
QUOTE
They wouldn't consummate the marriage. Back then I don't even think it was called sex unless it was coitus. That's a new fad.
Perhaps you could supply some support for this assertion?
QUOTE
But again, there was no requirement to consummate the marriage. So stop with this strawman. If there was no requirement to have sex to get married or be married, then laws that prevented a certain kind of sex can not be the reason why Gays did not marry prior to 1970.
Consummation was part of the process of establishing the contract. The legal definition does specify that the individuals must be capable of making the contract.
QUOTE
And stop pulling things out the hat. Just because something can be voided does not make it is invalid. It means it could be invalid.
A voidable marriage could be annulled - meaning it never happened. Not that the contract was dissolved, but that the contract was never entered into at all.
QUOTE
You take the institute of marriage and incorporate it into law.
And how does one go about doing that?
Regarding the marriage contract:
The marriage contract:
QUOTE
A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.
Marriage:
QUOTE
Marriage is governed by state law because of the long-held belief that the state has a strong public interest in promoting and protecting marriage and families. In that pursuit, state law defines not only what constitutes a valid legal marriage, but also the obligations and rights that arise from the marriage contract.
QUOTE
If I were to yell "Fire, fire" were my right's violated?? Many would say "no". Why?? Because the the right to freedom of speech never translated to mean "the right to say ANYTHING you want"
No, you actually have the right to say ANYTHING you want. There are, however, instances where that right is not protected under the constitution. If you do not have the right to say ANYTHING you want, the freedom of speech means nothing. But, yet again, I'll inform you that no right is inviolable. The State can violate fundamental rights under very specific circumstances. This is why I say you don't understand the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
QUOTE
You can easily find language such as:
"the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions"
because the concept of same-sex marriage, has not developed. When you are dealing with something that innately involve both genders people are going to use non-gender specific terms, like persons. You don't exclude something that is already excluded by nature. I don't need to use language to exclude same sex marriage if the concept of marriage needs both genders. Because the fact that they are the same sex is what excludes them.
You have the right to marry anyone within the concept of marriage is what the Judge was saying. So you must go to the concept of marriage at that time if you are going to use his words. Again you want to change the concept of marriage.
"the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions"
because the concept of same-sex marriage, has not developed. When you are dealing with something that innately involve both genders people are going to use non-gender specific terms, like persons. You don't exclude something that is already excluded by nature. I don't need to use language to exclude same sex marriage if the concept of marriage needs both genders. Because the fact that they are the same sex is what excludes them.
You have the right to marry anyone within the concept of marriage is what the Judge was saying. So you must go to the concept of marriage at that time if you are going to use his words. Again you want to change the concept of marriage.
Really? That's what this Judge was saying? Wow, that's fascinating because this Judge was actually talking about same-sex marriage.
And you keep referring to the innate involvement of both genders in marriage... the need for both genders without explaining why it is innate or necessary. All you claim is that it has always been that way. Well, that doesn't cut the mustard, droop. It never has. The simple fact that something has never been allowed before does not make it necessary to continue preventing it. That is a basic concept in the law.
QUOTE
Of course, neither a tradition of exclusion nor a naked desire to continue excluding suffices as a legitimate state interest at any level of scrutiny.
QUOTE
But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.
So, the simple fact that homosexuals have never been allowed to marry is not reason enough to prevent them from doing so now.
In regards to sodomy and procreation...
Sodomy is any sex act not conducive to procreation. People felt that sex acts not conducive to procreation were wrong... unnatural and, therefore, immoral, so they banned them.
QUOTE
Actually, Entspeak my lack of comprehension is my sarcastic way of saying, "you don't have a clue what you are saying." The law did not force couples to allow for procreation. If couples wanted to do foreplay they did it.
There is the intent of a law and then there is the following of the law by citizens. The intent of the law was to force people to allow for procreation in their marriage. Obviously, if couples wanted to engage in oral sex or anal sex they did it. But they did it in violation of the law.
The aim of murder laws is to prevent people from killing one another; but obviously, if someone really wants to kill some one, they do it.
QUOTE
The whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender., even before it evolved to monogamy.
Why?
Entspeak
Like you do understand?? OK I welcome anyone on the debate board, including you Entspeak to explain in a PM or on this very board what it means that "the government forced married couples to allow for procreation"
I tried to think of an parallel myself but could only think of this....
The government bans basically every type of smoking but tobacco products. So by making smoking crack, weed, hash, etc illegal, the government is forcing us to allow for smoking tobacco. Doesn't make sense to me... but maybe some one here understands it besides you.
It's not even remotely important to the point I was making.
How so?? Could a person get married and not have sex?? The answer is yes, because there was no prerequisite to have sex. If a older couple were to get married but never had sex, could they stay together in their marriage for years. If they were to tell somone they had not have sex would the law come and dissolve their marriage.
No sex or consummation is an escape clause out of the marriage, nothing more... stop trying to make it seem like anything else. It's just another stretch.
And we agree that in the english language could and would make a difference correct??
Can\Could connotes an option.
Will\would connotes a mandate.
And in this case the option must first be used by the parties in marriage. If they don't ask the court the court leaves them alone in their marriage and the law would recognize such a marriage as valid, even if it came to light that sex did not occur.
So homosexuals could fulfill all the necessary requirements of marriage.
And how does one go about doing that?
uhhhh.... legislation??
Wow you really did try...
Your first is a simple op-ed piece from slate and doesn't deal with the terms laid out in a marriage at all, but rather the terms of getting out of the marriage.
And your second one does not deal with the terms of marriage contract either.... as you your self highlighted.
"In that pursuit, state law defines not only what constitutes a valid legal marriage, but also the obligations and rights that arise from the marriage contract.
So let's not STREEEETCH that to mean that the laws are the terms of the contract. Think of a state licensed electrician. They may make laws that govern certain action or give guidelines of what can be awarded in civil lawsuits, or they may make laws regarding what are and are not valid contracts, but that doesn't mean they make the terms of a contract he/she has with a client.
Then the freedom means nothing NOW seeing that right of free speech voidable.
That's it Entspeak... that's how you get me!! Point conceded I copied the wrong persons quote.
But man that was a good comeback
I made an analogy to help you understand. It is not just that "it has always been that way" it is what the word is. You had society. There were women in society, there were men in society. no doubt, women formed close knit groups just as males formed close knit groups. But none of these were termed, marriage. The term marriage revolves around the normalizing of a common social event of men taking women as mates, or property for that matter. That was the concept behind marriage. As I said the concept has, like all things evolved, and changed, but what hasn't changed yet in most of the world is that the concept of marriage includes people of the opposing sex.
We are debating civil unions correct. Now we have a new term. Civil union that is the normalizing and legal term of any two people being allowed to make a contract of love and fidelity with each other. But civil union is a new term for a new concept, which is the pairing and legal legitimizing of a same-sex couple.
You don't want this, you feel that the concept of marriage needs to be changed to accept same-sex couples.
Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage, but one of the guidelines of marriage is that you have to be opposing genders. Homosexuals are denied the right to redefine marriage to include any two people regardless of gender.
I agree, but it does not mean that marriage has to be redefined just for the sake of homosexuality.
QUOTE
Never stated anything of the kind. The fact that you keep saying this only serves to illustrate that, despite your statements to the contrary, you do not understand what I'm saying.
Like you do understand?? OK I welcome anyone on the debate board, including you Entspeak to explain in a PM or on this very board what it means that "the government forced married couples to allow for procreation"I tried to think of an parallel myself but could only think of this....
The government bans basically every type of smoking but tobacco products. So by making smoking crack, weed, hash, etc illegal, the government is forcing us to allow for smoking tobacco. Doesn't make sense to me... but maybe some one here understands it besides you.
QUOTE
Perhaps you could supply some support for this assertion?
It's not even remotely important to the point I was making.
QUOTE
Consummation was part of the process of establishing the contract. The legal definition does specify that the individuals must be capable of making the contract.
How so?? Could a person get married and not have sex?? The answer is yes, because there was no prerequisite to have sex. If a older couple were to get married but never had sex, could they stay together in their marriage for years. If they were to tell somone they had not have sex would the law come and dissolve their marriage.
No sex or consummation is an escape clause out of the marriage, nothing more... stop trying to make it seem like anything else. It's just another stretch.
QUOTE
A voidable marriage could be annulled - meaning it never happened. Not that the contract was dissolved, but that the contract was never entered into at all.
And we agree that in the english language could and would make a difference correct??
Can\Could connotes an option.
Will\would connotes a mandate.
And in this case the option must first be used by the parties in marriage. If they don't ask the court the court leaves them alone in their marriage and the law would recognize such a marriage as valid, even if it came to light that sex did not occur.
So homosexuals could fulfill all the necessary requirements of marriage.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You take the institute of marriage and incorporate it into law.
And how does one go about doing that?
uhhhh.... legislation??
QUOTE
Regarding the marriage contract:
The marriage contract:
Marriage:
The marriage contract:
QUOTE
QUOTEA marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it's called a "premarital agreement"), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.
Marriage:
QUOTE
QUOTEMarriage is governed by state law because of the long-held belief that the state has a strong public interest in promoting and protecting marriage and families. In that pursuit, state law defines not only what constitutes a valid legal marriage, but also the obligations and rights that arise from the marriage contract.
Wow you really did try...
Your first is a simple op-ed piece from slate and doesn't deal with the terms laid out in a marriage at all, but rather the terms of getting out of the marriage.
And your second one does not deal with the terms of marriage contract either.... as you your self highlighted.
"In that pursuit, state law defines not only what constitutes a valid legal marriage, but also the obligations and rights that arise from the marriage contract.
So let's not STREEEETCH that to mean that the laws are the terms of the contract. Think of a state licensed electrician. They may make laws that govern certain action or give guidelines of what can be awarded in civil lawsuits, or they may make laws regarding what are and are not valid contracts, but that doesn't mean they make the terms of a contract he/she has with a client.
QUOTE
No, you actually have the right to say ANYTHING you want. There are, however, instances where that right is not protected under the constitution. If you do not have the right to say ANYTHING you want, the freedom of speech means nothing. But, yet again, I'll inform you that no right is inviolable. The State can violate fundamental rights under very specific circumstances. This is why I say you don't understand the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
Then the freedom means nothing NOW seeing that right of free speech voidable.
QUOTE
Really? That's what this Judge was saying? Wow, that's fascinating because this Judge was actually talking about same-sex marriage.
That's it Entspeak... that's how you get me!! Point conceded I copied the wrong persons quote.
QUOTE
The first court to find interracial marriage bans unconstitutional recognized this right:
QUOTE
QUOTE...the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice
But man that was a good comeback
QUOTE
And you keep referring to the innate involvement of both genders in marriage... the need for both genders without explaining why it is innate or necessary. All you claim is that it has always been that way. Well, that doesn't cut the mustard, droop. It never has. The simple fact that something has never been allowed before does not make it necessary to continue preventing it. That is a basic concept in the law.
I made an analogy to help you understand. It is not just that "it has always been that way" it is what the word is. You had society. There were women in society, there were men in society. no doubt, women formed close knit groups just as males formed close knit groups. But none of these were termed, marriage. The term marriage revolves around the normalizing of a common social event of men taking women as mates, or property for that matter. That was the concept behind marriage. As I said the concept has, like all things evolved, and changed, but what hasn't changed yet in most of the world is that the concept of marriage includes people of the opposing sex.
We are debating civil unions correct. Now we have a new term. Civil union that is the normalizing and legal term of any two people being allowed to make a contract of love and fidelity with each other. But civil union is a new term for a new concept, which is the pairing and legal legitimizing of a same-sex couple.
You don't want this, you feel that the concept of marriage needs to be changed to accept same-sex couples.
Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage, but one of the guidelines of marriage is that you have to be opposing genders. Homosexuals are denied the right to redefine marriage to include any two people regardless of gender.
QUOTE
But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.
I agree, but it does not mean that marriage has to be redefined just for the sake of homosexuality.
QUOTE
In regards to sodomy and procreation...
Sodomy is any sex act not conducive to procreation. People felt that sex acts not conducive to procreation were wrong... unnatural and, therefore, immoral, so they banned them.
Ok... why did they feel that the acts wrong, unnatural and immoral.
Because it was icky or because it was harmful to procreation?? That's right, icky. I mean I can't back it up, but I can back up the idea the the latter option is ABSURD!!
QUOTE
There is the intent of a law and then there is the following of the law by citizens. The intent of the law was to force people to allow for procreation in their marriage. Obviously, if couples wanted to engage in oral sex or anal sex they did it. But they did it in violation of the law.
Do you want to know what the intent of laws that are not enforced?? To appease icky-sensitive voters. They never enforce sodomy laws against married couples.
QUOTE
The aim of murder laws is to prevent people from killing one another; but obviously, if someone really wants to kill some one, they do it.
Good point Entspeak. Now what's the point of murder laws if murderers are never persued or or prosecuted. It would mean... i don't know... the government really doesn't care and has no interest.
QUOTE
Why?
Why does any concept get a term assigned to it... maybe becuase we use language to talk to each other.
QUOTE(droop224)
Like you do understand?? OK I welcome anyone on the debate board, including you Entspeak to explain in a PM or on this very board what it means that "the government forced married couples to allow for procreation"I tried to think of an parallel myself but could only think of this....
The government bans basically every type of smoking but tobacco products. So by making smoking crack, weed, hash, etc illegal, the government is forcing us to allow for smoking tobacco. Doesn't make sense to me... but maybe some one here understands it besides you.
Hell, I don't understand your parallel. I also don't see how it is a parallel to what I was talking about, yet another indicator that you don't understand the issue.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Perhaps you could supply some support for this assertion?
It's not even remotely important to the point I was making.
Okay... let me know when you are actually going to provide some sort of support for the things you say. No right to choose who we marry - that's a bit o' genius that you've yet to back up. I'm really wondering when you are going to start backing these assertions of yours up.
I call you on something ridiculous - asking you to back up your ridiculous assertion - and you're response is that it's irrelevant so you don't have to back it up?
I see.
QUOTE
How so?? Could a person get married and not have sex?? The answer is yes, because there was no prerequisite to have sex. If a older couple were to get married but never had sex, could they stay together in their marriage for years. If they were to tell somone they had not have sex would the law come and dissolve their marriage.
No sex or consummation is an escape clause out of the marriage, nothing more... stop trying to make it seem like anything else. It's just another stretch.
No sex or consummation is an escape clause out of the marriage, nothing more... stop trying to make it seem like anything else. It's just another stretch.
So, there was no presumption that consummation was a part of marriage? None? So the government can presume a legal definition counter to an explicit legal definition and exclude same-sex couples based on that presumption, but they can't presume that consummation was a part of marriage and exclude same-sex couples based on that presumption?
So, the government can only presume in instances that support of your argument? An argument whose only support thus far is that you say so?
QUOTE
So let's not STREEEETCH that to mean that the laws are the terms of the contract.
So, what are the terms of the contract, droop and where are they laid out? Dazzle me with your brilliance. Or are you going to say that this is irrelevant to the point you are making?
QUOTE
Think of a state licensed electrician. They may make laws that govern certain action or give guidelines of what can be awarded in civil lawsuits, or they may make laws regarding what are and are not valid contracts, but that doesn't mean they make the terms of a contract he/she has with a client.
No. Not the same.
QUOTE
QUOTE
No, you actually have the right to say ANYTHING you want. There are, however, instances where that right is not protected under the constitution. If you do not have the right to say ANYTHING you want, the freedom of speech means nothing. But, yet again, I'll inform you that no right is inviolable. The State can violate fundamental rights under very specific circumstances. This is why I say you don't understand the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
Then the freedom means nothing NOW seeing that right of free speech voidable.
Who said anything about voiding the right to free speech? I said inviolable. I'm beginning to believe you're dyslexic.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Really? That's what this Judge was saying? Wow, that's fascinating because this Judge was actually talking about same-sex marriage.
That's it Entspeak... that's how you get me!! Point conceded I copied the wrong persons quote.
And I'm supposed to know that... how?
QUOTE
I made an analogy to help you understand. It is not just that "it has always been that way" it is what the word is. You had society. There were women in society, there were men in society. no doubt, women formed close knit groups just as males formed close knit groups. But none of these were termed, marriage. The term marriage revolves around the normalizing of a common social event of men taking women as mates, or property for that matter. That was the concept behind marriage. As I said the concept has, like all things evolved, and changed, but what hasn't changed yet in most of the world is that the concept of marriage includes people of the opposing sex.
And what does that have to do with civil marriage, which is the institute of marriage codified in law? Perhaps you can point to the codification that supports this?
QUOTE
I agree, but it does not mean that marriage has to be redefined just for the sake of homosexuality.
This, again, illustrates a complete ignorance regarding the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
QUOTE
Ok... why did they feel that the acts wrong, unnatural and immoral.
Because it was icky or because it was harmful to procreation??
Are you mentally handicapped? Do you have some sort of reading problem? Where did I ever use the words, "harmful to procreation?" I never did?
QUOTE
That's right, icky. I mean I can't back it up, but I can back up the idea the the latter option is ABSURD!!
I never even claimed the latter option was the case, droop. That is an option created by you.
And I'm not surprised that you can't back up your assertion. You've yet to back up a single one.
Well, here's some more back up for what I actually asserted...
First Marriage Laws in the American Colonies:
QUOTE
As the number of colonial settlements grew in the 1600s, each instituted its own local code of laws, and each included sodomy as a capital offense. The New England colonies in particular, which were founded by strict religious separatists, punished sodomy harshly because they considered it a crime against marriage and the family - a charge that has echoes in today's debates over homosexuality. But the concept of "family" was different 300 years ago; the family was, in fact, the major economic unit of production of that agricultural society. Early New Englanders faced brutal, unfamiliar weather conditions, crop failures, starvation, disease, high infant mortality, and common death in childbirth. Procreation was the key to the economic survival of the colonies. In this survivalist atmosphere, sodomy - both same-sex and opposite-sex - and masturbation "tended to the frustrating of the ordinance of marriage and the hindering of the generation of mankind," as John Winthrop declared in the 1646 sodomy trial of a man in Guilford, Conn. "Spilling" or "spending" male "seed" in any kind of non-procreative activity was considered a sinful waste, because it put the future of the colonies in jeopardy.
All sex was to be geared toward procreation... any other type of sex act was a sinful waste. The US Supreme Court later included cunnilingus in this category of unnatural sex acts - despite the fact that it didn't involve the spilling or spending of male seed.
QUOTE
They never enforce sodomy laws against married couples.
Never? I love when you use absolutes. Welcome aboard the HMS Pinafore.
Of course, they never enforce sodomy laws against married couples... sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Or is this another textual mistake that you've made that I'm supposed to somehow guess at?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Why?
Why does any concept get a term assigned to it... maybe becuase we use language to talk to each other.
That doesn't answer the question. You stated:
QUOTE
The whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender., even before it evolved to monogamy.
You weren't talking about the term, you said the whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender...
Why did it revolve around gender?
Entspeak
Hell, I don't understand your parallel. I also don't see how it is a parallel to what I was talking about, yet another indicator that you don't understand the issue.
My point exactly. It's hard to understand something as unintelligible as this one comment. I've asked you to rephrase or reword it because it made no sense. You refuse. Allow me to explain my parallel. As I understand what you are saying, (which you say I don't) You feel that the law has made all these other sex acts illegal. They made sex outside of marriage illegal. They never forced us to have sex or procreate You believe this shows the the governmnet is forcing us to allow for procreation.
my parallel, is well they've made smoking all these other drugs and chemical illegal, hash, weed, crack etc. making just about (at least commonly) the only legal thing to smoke is tobacco. They never force us to smoke. So the government is forcing us to allow for tobacco smoking.
And no my paralledl doesn't make much sense, but neither does your original comment.
Yes. It is not consequential to my points in this debate, nor yours. And if I let you go further, you will. What's the point of trying to argue out when we went from calling buggery to anal sex. Or cunnilingus or Fellatio to oral sex??? No purpose, no point!!
Not presumption, prerequisite, or better yet, requirement/mandate . So the rest of what you are writing is just a strawman, have fun knocking it down or slapping it around. Entspeak, if there was no legal requirement there was no requirement prohibiting homosexuals from getting married by banning marriage. Not to mention that consummation in marriage then plays just as big a part as it does now. And homosexuals STILL can't consummate their marriage.
Yes it is irrelevant. But I don't need to dazzle you with brilliance, your the master illusionist here, not me. Your vows are your marriage contract. :gasp: shocking isn't it... you know when the two of you make that... uh... "agreement" LEt's see how bad you can mess a simple thing like that up... i know it's coming....
Tell that to the legal scholars that disagree with you.
Are you mentally handicapped? Do you have some sort of reading problem? Where did I ever use the words, "harmful to procreation?" I never did?
All sex was to be geared toward procreation... any other type of sex act was a sinful waste. The US Supreme Court later included cunnilingus in this category of unnatural sex acts - despite the fact that it didn't involve the spilling or spending of male seed.
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE(droop224) Like you do understand?? OK I welcome anyone on the debate board, including you Entspeak to explain in a PM or on this very board what it means that "the government forced married couples to allow for procreation"
I tried to think of an parallel myself but could only think of this....
The government bans basically every type of smoking but tobacco products. So by making smoking crack, weed, hash, etc illegal, the government is forcing us to allow for smoking tobacco. Doesn't make sense to me... but maybe some one here understands it besides you.
Like you do understand?? OK I welcome anyone on the debate board, including you Entspeak to explain in a PM or on this very board what it means that "the government forced married couples to allow for procreation"I tried to think of an parallel myself but could only think of this....
The government bans basically every type of smoking but tobacco products. So by making smoking crack, weed, hash, etc illegal, the government is forcing us to allow for smoking tobacco. Doesn't make sense to me... but maybe some one here understands it besides you.
Hell, I don't understand your parallel. I also don't see how it is a parallel to what I was talking about, yet another indicator that you don't understand the issue.
My point exactly.
It's hard to understand something as unintelligible as this one comment. I've asked you to rephrase or reword it because it made no sense. You refuse. Allow me to explain my parallel. As I understand what you are saying, (which you say I don't) You feel that the law has made all these other sex acts illegal. They made sex outside of marriage illegal. They never forced us to have sex or procreate You believe this shows the the governmnet is forcing us to allow for procreation.my parallel, is well they've made smoking all these other drugs and chemical illegal, hash, weed, crack etc. making just about (at least commonly) the only legal thing to smoke is tobacco. They never force us to smoke. So the government is forcing us to allow for tobacco smoking.
And no my paralledl doesn't make much sense, but neither does your original comment.
QUOTE
Okay... let me know when you are actually going to provide some sort of support for the things you say. No right to choose who we marry - that's a bit o' genius that you've yet to back up. I'm really wondering when you are going to start backing these assertions of yours up.
I call you on something ridiculous - asking you to back up your ridiculous assertion - and you're response is that it's irrelevant so you don't have to back it up?
I see.
I call you on something ridiculous - asking you to back up your ridiculous assertion - and you're response is that it's irrelevant so you don't have to back it up?
I see.
Yes. It is not consequential to my points in this debate, nor yours. And if I let you go further, you will. What's the point of trying to argue out when we went from calling buggery to anal sex. Or cunnilingus or Fellatio to oral sex??? No purpose, no point!!
QUOTE
So, there was no presumption that consummation was a part of marriage? None? So the government can presume a legal definition counter to an explicit legal definition and exclude same-sex couples based on that presumption, but they can't presume that consummation was a part of marriage and exclude same-sex couples based on that presumption?
So, the government can only presume in instances that support of your argument? An argument whose only support thus far is that you say so?
So, the government can only presume in instances that support of your argument? An argument whose only support thus far is that you say so?
Not presumption, prerequisite, or better yet, requirement/mandate . So the rest of what you are writing is just a strawman, have fun knocking it down or slapping it around. Entspeak, if there was no legal requirement there was no requirement prohibiting homosexuals from getting married by banning marriage. Not to mention that consummation in marriage then plays just as big a part as it does now. And homosexuals STILL can't consummate their marriage.
QUOTE
So, what are the terms of the contract, droop and where are they laid out? Dazzle me with your brilliance. Or are you going to say that this is irrelevant to the point you are making?
Yes it is irrelevant. But I don't need to dazzle you with brilliance, your the master illusionist here, not me. Your vows are your marriage contract. :gasp: shocking isn't it... you know when the two of you make that... uh... "agreement" LEt's see how bad you can mess a simple thing like that up... i know it's coming....
QUOTE
This, again, illustrates a complete ignorance regarding the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
Tell that to the legal scholars that disagree with you.
QUOTE
Because it was icky or because it was harmful to procreation??
Are you mentally handicapped? Do you have some sort of reading problem? Where did I ever use the words, "harmful to procreation?" I never did?
No entspeak you didn't say it.
QUOTE
I never even claimed the latter option was the case, droop. That is an option created by you.
And I'm not surprised that you can't back up your assertion. You've yet to back up a single one.
Well, here's some more back up for what I actually asserted...
First Marriage Laws in the American Colonies:
And I'm not surprised that you can't back up your assertion. You've yet to back up a single one.
Well, here's some more back up for what I actually asserted...
First Marriage Laws in the American Colonies:
QUOTE
As the number of colonial settlements grew in the 1600s, each instituted its own local code of laws, and each included sodomy as a capital offense. The New England colonies in particular, which were founded by strict religious separatists, punished sodomy harshly because they considered it a crime against marriage and the family - a charge that has echoes in today's debates over homosexuality. But the concept of "family" was different 300 years ago; the family was, in fact, the major economic unit of production of that agricultural society. Early New Englanders faced brutal, unfamiliar weather conditions, crop failures, starvation, disease, high infant mortality, and common death in childbirth. Procreation was the key to the economic survival of the colonies. In this survivalist atmosphere, sodomy - both same-sex and opposite-sex - and masturbation "tended to the frustrating of the ordinance of marriage and the hindering of the generation of mankind," as John Winthrop declared in the 1646 sodomy trial of a man in Guilford, Conn. "Spilling" or "spending" male "seed" in any kind of non-procreative activity was considered a sinful waste, because it put the future of the colonies in jeopardy.
All sex was to be geared toward procreation... any other type of sex act was a sinful waste. The US Supreme Court later included cunnilingus in this category of unnatural sex acts - despite the fact that it didn't involve the spilling or spending of male seed.
O.k. I'm dropping the term icky!!! Now did they make sodomy laws to protect procreation or because it was a sinful waste. If you say sinful waste... that's all i need.
QUOTE
Never? I love when you use absolutes. Welcome aboard the HMS Pinafore.
Of course, they never enforce sodomy laws against married couples... sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Or is this another textual mistake that you've made that I'm supposed to somehow guess at?
Of course, they never enforce sodomy laws against married couples... sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Or is this another textual mistake that you've made that I'm supposed to somehow guess at?
Huh, are you confused?? That's what my link said.
QUOTE
You weren't talking about the term, you said the whole idea of marriage at it's creation revolved around gender...
Why did it revolve around gender?
Why did it revolve around gender?
Well the idea had to get a term, right?? As to why, there are so many reasons why. Most importantly is males taking females as mates for long periods of times. And this was normalized to the point of creating the institution of marriage.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 11 2007, 12:21 AM)
And homosexuals STILL can't consummate their marriage.
Are you implying that those same-sex couples who married in Massachusett's were unable to consummate their marriage? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
QUOTE
Yes it is irrelevant.
Of course, it is.
Color me surprised by that response.QUOTE
Your vows are your marriage contract. :gasp:
Well, perhaps you could show me where the vows are mandated in the law? I found one that simply said each party had to say, "I take you, (insert name) for my lawfully wedded (husband/wife)." That's it. You telling me that those are the terms of the legal contract? That sounds more to me like an agreement to the terms of the contract. But, yet again, I will wait for you to provide some backup for your assertion... Oh, I forgot... you said it was irrelevant... of course.
QUOTE
QUOTE
This, again, illustrates a complete ignorance regarding the manner in which rights are protected in this country.
Tell that to the legal scholars that disagree with you.
Perhaps you could point to one? Or is this irrelevant, too?
QUOTE
O.k. I'm dropping the term icky!!! Now did they make sodomy laws to protect procreation or because it was a sinful waste. If you say sinful waste... that's all i need.
Sinful waste because...? Procreation? They wanted people to procreate? Anything else was a sinful waste, right? So, sodomy laws are related to procreation.QUOTE
Well the idea had to get a term, right?? As to why, there are so many reasons why. Most importantly is males taking females as mates for long periods of times. And this was normalized to the point of creating the institution of marriage.
And why was it important for males to take females as mates for long periods of time, droop? Your dancing around the question of why it revolved around gender... you're still giving the "it just did" response.
QUOTE
Are you implying that those couples who married in Massachusett's were unable to consummate their marriage? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Yes i am. However, I admit it is debatable. Recently, there are those that believe having oral sex you virginity. Others go as far as to equate any form of sex on equal level of coitus sex. Rather than coitus sex being sexual intercourse.... any form of sex is sexual intercourse.
Again better to debate it in another debate.
QUOTE
Well, perhaps you could show me where the vows are mandated in the law? I found one that simply said each party had to say, "I take you, (insert name) for my lawfully wedded (husband/wife)." That's it. You telling me that those are the terms of the legal contract? That sounds more to me like an agreement to the terms of the contract. But, yet again, I will wait for you to provide some backup for your assertion... Oh, I forgot... you said it was irrelevant... of course. :thumsup:
Are you a lawyer??? Do you feel if things aren't extremely complicated they can't be valid. Yes, the marriage contract is that simplistic. And yes a contract is an agreement. It's what you agree to.
QUOTE
Marriage
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
From what you've told me the ceremony of marriage is legally binding. Those oral vows are the only thing you agree to do written or orally.
QUOTE
Perhaps you could point to one? Or is this irrelevant, too?
From the state we are talking about... I would say apellate court judges are legal scholars...
[quote]A ruling by the California Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a homosexual marriage ban and maintained the standard that a marriage arrangement can only exist between one man and one woman. In the ruling, the appeals court reversed the trial court opinion and decided that the Family Code statutes which provide a limited definition of marriage are constitutional.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 11 2007, 01:26 PM)
Yes i am. However, I admit it is debatable. Recently, there are those that believe having oral sex you virginity. Others go as far as to equate any form of sex on equal level of coitus sex. Rather than coitus sex being sexual intercourse.... any form of sex is sexual intercourse.
Again better to debate it in another debate.
Again better to debate it in another debate.
I see, so... this, too, is irrelevant? Are you going to say anything relevant, droop? Or is it relevant until you can't back it up... at which point it becomes irrelevant?
QUOTE
Are you a lawyer??? Do you feel if things aren't extremely complicated they can't be valid. Yes, the marriage contract is that simplistic. And yes a contract is an agreement. It's what you agree to.
So, I take it you aren't going to be able to point to anything in the law requiring vows or dictating the nature of the vows?
QUOTE
Marriage
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
I have no idea where this definition of marriage comes from, can you provide a link, please?
QUOTE
From what you've told me the ceremony of marriage is legally binding.
Really? And at what point did I say that? You can have a marriage ceremony and have it not be legally binding.
QUOTE
Those oral vows are the only thing you agree to do written or orally.
Backup, backup, backup, droop. Or is this irrelevant, too? If a man is only required by law to say, "I, Bob, take you, Edith, to be my lawfully wedded wife." You're saying that's all he has agreed to do? Well, gee, what does that mean? He only has to introduce himself as her husband? He doesn't have to, say... claim any subsequent children she has as his own? I mean, if he didn't say he would do it in the vows, he doesn't have to, right?
QUOTE
Perhaps you could point to one? Or is this irrelevant, too?
QUOTE
From the state we are talking about... I would say apellate court judges are legal scholars...
QUOTE
A ruling by the California Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a homosexual marriage ban and maintained the standard that a marriage arrangement can only exist between one man and one woman. In the ruling, the appeals court reversed the trial court opinion and decided that the Family Code statutes which provide a limited definition of marriage are constitutional.
Can you point to something in that decision that relates directly to the manner in which rights are protected in this country, droop? This quote does not support your assertion.
And, I see you've not elected to deal with the rest of my post.
QUOTE
I see, so... this, too, is irrelevant? Are you going to say anything relevant, droop? Or is it relevant until you can't back it up... at which point it becomes irrelevant?
It's not that it's totally irrlelevant, but if we hash the debate out here... we just go further off track. But.... briefly. How do you consummate a marriage??
QUOTE
Marriages are said to be consummated when the act of sexual intercourse has taken place after the ceremony.
Well obviously two people of the same sex can't have sexual intercourse since that is coitus sex. At which time you'll counter with definitions of sexual intercourse that include anal and oral sex, at which time I ask you to explain how the line was drawn there. Next thing you know we're 3 post apiece in to a subject way off topic.
QUOTE
So, I take it you aren't going to be able to point to anything in the law requiring vows or dictating the nature of the vows?
I thought you were married... That's irrelevant too by the way
But then again I don't know of laws that dictate exactly what contract I sign with my plumber or handy man, or lawn care provider, so no I don't know of any laws that dictate what a person vows have to be.... I know one thing to have a legal mariage you have to get married. Whether in a religious ceremony or on the courthouse steps. It typically follows an agreement to take one another as husband and wife.QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTEMarriage
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. 2.an agreement enforceable by law. 3.the written form of such an agreement. 4.the division of law dealing with contracts.
I have no idea where this definition of marriage comes from, can you provide a link, please?
This is all my fault .... I'm sorry..... I was talking about contract in the previous paragraph.. that is the definition of a contract
QUOTE
Really? And at what point did I say that? You can have a marriage ceremony and have it not be legally binding.
Good point... I'll let my eight year old daughter know that. You know kids and their imaginations.... What are we talking about Entspeak?? you infer in every little law to make it say what you want it to... but you make me respond to some little miscue because you can think of ceremonies that are legally binding. I can too... so can't you infer that that is not what I am talking about.
QUOTE
Backup, backup, backup, droop. Or is this irrelevant, too? If a man is only required by law to say, "I, Bob, take you, Edith, to be my lawfully wedded wife." You're saying that's all he has agreed to do? Well, gee, what does that mean? He only has to introduce himself as her husband? He doesn't have to, say... claim any subsequent children she has as his own? I mean, if he didn't say he would do it in the vows, he doesn't have to, right?
Is he doing it because he signed an agreement to do it with this term laid out in black and white?? Or is he doing so because it is the law.
QUOTE
Can you point to something in that decision that relates directly to the manner in which rights are protected in this country, droop? This quote does not support your assertion.
What's important is that it defies yours.
QUOTE
And, I see you've not elected to deal with the rest of my post.
Strange... I actually did... but it's not there. Actually everything south of a quote is missing... no biggie
QUOTE
Sinful waste because...? Procreation? They wanted people to procreate? Anything else was a sinful waste, right? So, sodomy laws are related to procreation.
Of course sodomy laws are related to procreation. By definition sodomy laws are defined as sexual activity that does not lead to procreation. I'm asking you to make an argument that is not circular. The question is why were they created. Was procreation in danger?? So stop playing coy and answer the question.
QUOTE
And why was it important for males to take females as mates for long periods of time, droop? Your dancing around the question of why it revolved around gender... you're still giving the "it just did" response.
Well stop asking leading questions and just state your point. It never was important that males take females for long periods of time. Procreation would have happened regardless, males taking females for periods of time is part of our social evolution.
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 11 2007, 07:53 PM)
It's not that it's totally irrlelevant, but if we hash the debate out here... we just go further off track. But.... briefly. How do you consummate a marriage??
Well obviously two people of the same sex can't have sexual intercourse since that is coitus sex. At which time you'll counter with definitions of sexual intercourse that include anal and oral sex, at which time I ask you to explain how the line was drawn there. Next thing you know we're 3 post apiece in to a subject way off topic.
Well obviously two people of the same sex can't have sexual intercourse since that is coitus sex. At which time you'll counter with definitions of sexual intercourse that include anal and oral sex, at which time I ask you to explain how the line was drawn there. Next thing you know we're 3 post apiece in to a subject way off topic.
No, what's irrelevant is how the line was drawn there. If consummation occurs through sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse can include anal or oral sex, then, ipso facto, same-sex couples can consummate their marriage. So, you are wrong.
What's not irrelevant is that, at one point, same-sex couples couldn't legally consummate a marriage.
QUOTE
I thought you were married... That's irrelevant too by the way But then again I don't know of laws that dictate exactly what contract I sign with my plumber or handy man, or lawn care provider, so no I don't know of any laws that dictate what a person vows have to be.... I know one thing to have a legal mariage you have to get married. Whether in a religious ceremony or on the courthouse steps. It typically follows an agreement to take one another as husband and wife.
But then again I don't know of laws that dictate exactly what contract I sign with my plumber or handy man, or lawn care provider, so no I don't know of any laws that dictate what a person vows have to be.... I know one thing to have a legal mariage you have to get married. Whether in a religious ceremony or on the courthouse steps. It typically follows an agreement to take one another as husband and wife.If you only have to agree to take one another as husband and wife... you are only agreeing to enter into a contract with one another... where are the terms of that contract?
QUOTE
Is he doing it because he signed an agreement to do it with this term laid out in black and white?? Or is he doing so because it is the law.
It is a law that applies to married men only. Therefore in agreeing to be married, he agreed to be governed by this law. The only way to avoid being governed by this law is to be unmarried. That is how the law is a part of the contract. It is one of the terms of a civil marriage contract. As you stated, civil marriage is the institution of marriage codified in the law. The terms of the contract are codified in the law. In agreeing to be married, you agree to abide by these terms - these laws. You receive marriage benefits - also codified in the law. The only way to legally receive these benefits or avoid these obligations is to be unmarried - they are part of the civil marriage contract.
QUOTE
What's important is that it defies yours.
No, what's important is that there is nothing in that quote that backs up your assertion. This appears to be a consistent problem for you.
QUOTE
Of course sodomy laws are related to procreation. By definition sodomy laws are defined as sexual activity that does not lead to procreation. I'm asking you to make an argument that is not circular. The question is why were they created. Was procreation in danger?? So stop playing coy and answer the question.
I've answered the question several times, but to put it into terms you've accepted. Sodomy laws were created - sodomy was banned - because the act was considered a sinful waste (which is a direct reference to procreation.) Was procreation in danger? Well, that was the thought in the early colonies, at least (as is mentioned in the quote I provided - you... the backup)... but in general, this was a moral law derived from this concept of "sinful waste"... so sodomy laws were created to make sure married couples (the only people legally allowed to have sex) did not engage in sinful waste. So this statement:
QUOTE(droop)
As for sodomy, it simply was morality. Why would the government find an interest in stopping oral sex?? Do you think they actually thought a married couple might just use their mouths and never have sex?? That doesn't make sense?? It truly had nothing to do with procreation.
is false. If "sinful waste" refers to the fact that these acts were not conducive to procreation, then the creation of these laws had something to do with procreation.
Married couples were only legally allowed to engage in acts conducive to procreation... this included the type of sexual intercourse that would consummate - or bind - the marriage. Add to this, the fact that if the couple chose to have sex, they were not legally allowed to do anything to prevent conception. So, a married couple had to legally allow for procreation in their marriage. Now, you say there was no pre-requisite, but there was the expectation - especially since sexual intercourse is what traditionally bound or sealed the contract between the two people.
QUOTE
Well stop asking leading questions and just state your point. It never was important that males take females for long periods of time. Procreation would have happened regardless, males taking females for periods of time is part of our social evolution.
You keep trying to say this man/woman aspect is an essential component of marriage. Why is it? That's not a leading question.
QUOTE
No, what's irrelevant is how the line was drawn there. If consummation occurs through sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse can include anal or oral sex, then, ipso facto, same-sex couples can consummate their marriage. So, you are wrong.
No I'm not wrong... by such a loose definition of sexual intercourse people who have been pranked with a picture of their drunkens freinds penis in their ear just had sexual intercourse.
Let's define oral sex shall we.
QUOTE
Oral sex
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Oral sex consists of all sexual activities that involve the use of the mouth, which may include use of the tongue, teeth, and throat, to stimulate genitalia. Cunnilingus refers to oral sex performed on a woman, and fellatio refers to oral sex performed on a man. Analingus refers to oral stimulation of the anus, and although it is a form of oral sex, the term "oral sex" usually refers to oral stimulation of the genitals. People may engage in oral sex as part of foreplay before intercourse, or during or following intercourse. It may also be performed as its own sex act.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Oral sex consists of all sexual activities that involve the use of the mouth, which may include use of the tongue, teeth, and throat, to stimulate genitalia. Cunnilingus refers to oral sex performed on a woman, and fellatio refers to oral sex performed on a man. Analingus refers to oral stimulation of the anus, and although it is a form of oral sex, the term "oral sex" usually refers to oral stimulation of the genitals. People may engage in oral sex as part of foreplay before intercourse, or during or following intercourse. It may also be performed as its own sex act.
Entspeak, please explain to us how oral sex can happen before, during and after intercourse.... if it IS intercourse. Surely you don't care since the extent of your logic goes to... just find any quote that backs up any willy nilly idea you have. Which we'll get into later.
QUOTE
If you only have to agree to take one another as husband and wife... you are only agreeing to enter into a contract with one another... where are the terms of that contract?
Entspeak... you can't provide any terms... Take is a verb especially when used in the thew sense of taking a wife or husband. The part where you state your name "I, (state you name)" is declaring who is entering the contract. What is it that you are doing?? Taking (blah blah blah, insert vows) to be your husband, wife. This is what the two are agreeing to do. maybe more, maybe less. What makes it lawful, is when it is legally recognized by the law.
QUOTE
It is a law that applies to married men only. Therefore in agreeing to be married, he agreed to be governed by this law. The only way to avoid being governed by this law is to be unmarried. That is how the law is a part of the contract. It is one of the terms of a civil marriage contract. As you stated, civil marriage is the institution of marriage codified. The terms of the contract are codified in the law. In agreeing to be married, you agree to abide by these terms - these laws. You receive marriage benefits - also codified in the law. The only way to legally receive these benefits or avoid these obligations is to be unmarried - they are part of the civil marriage contract.
What you are saying is ridiculous.
Johnny just went out yesterday. Johnny said, I want a dog. Johnny went to the pound and got a dog. In the world of Entspeak, when Jhonny adopted the dog he signed a contract with the dog. Why?? How?? As evidence Entspeak provides the following.
QUOTE
Laws Regarding Companion Animals and Owner's Legal Responsibilities
(From the Illinois Humane Care for Animals Act)</H2>Owner's Duties (70/3) Each owner shall provide for each of his/her animals:
(a) sufficient quantity of good quality, wholesome food and water;
(
adequate shelter and protection from the weather; © veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering; and
(d) humane care and treatment.
Any person convicted of violating this section of the Act is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $500.00 and/or 30 days in jail.
Because in Entspeak's world since these laws only apply to pet owners, Johnny just made a contract with his chocolate lab named, cocoa.
Laws are not terms to a contract, unless now we're talking about philosophical contracts like social contract.
QUOTE
I've answered the question several times, but to put it into terms you've accepted. Sodomy laws were created - sodomy was banned - because the act was considered a sinful waste (which is a direct reference to procreation.) Was procreation in danger? Well, that was the thought in the early colonies, at least (as is mentioned in the quote I provided - you... the backup)... but in general, this was a moral law derived from this concept of "sinful waste"... so sodomy laws were created to make sure married couples (the only people legally allowed to have sex) did not engage in sinful waste. So this statement:
is false. If "sinful waste" refers to the fact that these acts were not conducive to procreation, then the creation of these laws had something to do with procreation.
QUOTE
QUOTE(droop)As for sodomy, it simply was morality. Why would the government find an interest in stopping oral sex?? Do you think they actually thought a married couple might just use their mouths and never have sex?? That doesn't make sense?? It truly had nothing to do with procreation.
is false. If "sinful waste" refers to the fact that these acts were not conducive to procreation, then the creation of these laws had something to do with procreation.
False?? look at my whole argument then put that last statement in context Entspeak. Do you see the part where i am asking about married couples?? I'm pointing out that that procreation was not in danger.
Let's look at other statements I've made.
QUOTE
They illegalized all forms of sex, but the one they could not, because the world would die off. They did not need to make other forms of sexual contact illegal, people would not have stopped having sex simply because they were allowed to have foreplay. They did this because of their view of morality.
QUOTE
Thousands and Thousands of years humans have procreated(along with every other living organism on the planet). It is in our INNATE nature to procreate... but you think that Congress felt compelled to make laws against sodomy... to ensure that we would procreate?!?!
So let's examine the two options
A: they made the laws because it was icky (morality)
B: they made the laws to ensure something would happen.... that's been happening for EONS with out any legal assistance. (procreation)
So let's examine the two options
A: they made the laws because it was icky (morality)
B: they made the laws to ensure something would happen.... that's been happening for EONS with out any legal assistance. (procreation)
I even said...
QUOTE
look if you are saying
"Droop, the reason they gave is procreation" I could agree. (Kind of like the reason they gave us for going to war in Iraq was WMD) If you are saying "Droop they banned all sex that was non-conducive to procreation" again we are in agreement.
But why did they make sodomy illegal. What was the reason??
"Droop, the reason they gave is procreation" I could agree. (Kind of like the reason they gave us for going to war in Iraq was WMD) If you are saying "Droop they banned all sex that was non-conducive to procreation" again we are in agreement.
But why did they make sodomy illegal. What was the reason??
Look at the context of all my quotes Entspeak, use your reasoning skills. I have never denied that there is relations to sodomy laws and procreation. In fact, I very early point out that all sodomy is sex unrelated to procreation. Yes there is a relation. I deny the presumption, the idea, that sodomy laws were made DUE to procreation. There was no practicality to making sodomy laws. It was simply based on morality without reasoning. The bible calls spilling the seed a sinful waste.. is a reason, it holds not practicality.
The creation of Sodomy laws has nothing to do with us procreating. Unless you are of a different opinion stop debating it.
QUOTE
Married couples were only legally allowed to engage in acts conducive to procreation... this included the type of sexual intercourse that would consummate - or bind - the marriage. Add to this, the fact that if the couple chose to have sex, they were not legally allowed to do anything to prevent conception. So, a married couple had to legally allow for procreation in their marriage. Now, you say there was no pre-requisite, but there was the expectation - especially since sexual intercourse is what traditionally bound or sealed the contract between the two people.
Point 1: They had to allow?? Why did they have to allow for it?? They could allow for nothing, correct??
Point 2: Really, hand jobs included, right
Traditionally it was coitus sex. And we're not talking trditionally, we're talking legally right? So back to the original point. Sodomy deals with sex. Sex is not a prerequisite to marriage. Explain to us how laws that dealt with sex that were not necessary for marriage... prevented the marriage of homosexuals. "back-up, back-up, back-up"
QUOTE
You keep trying to say this man/woman aspect is an essential component of marriage. Why is it? That's not a leading question.
Because the joining of man and woman is the concept for which the term marriage revolves around. So how do you add in homosexual unions, with out changing the concept and term to include them??
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jun 12 2007, 10:20 AM)
Let's define oral sex shall we.
Entspeak, please explain to us how oral sex can happen before, during and after intercourse.... if it IS intercourse. Surely you don't care since the extent of your logic goes to... just find any quote that backs up any willy nilly idea you have. Which we'll get into later.
QUOTE
[/size] Oral sex
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Oral sex consists of all sexual activities that involve the use of the mouth, which may include use of the tongue, teeth, and throat, to stimulate genitalia. Cunnilingus refers to oral sex performed on a woman, and fellatio refers to oral sex performed on a man. Analingus refers to oral stimulation of the anus, and although it is a form of oral sex, the term "oral sex" usually refers to oral stimulation of the genitals. People may engage in oral sex as part of foreplay before intercourse, or during or following intercourse. It may also be performed as its own sex act.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
Oral sex consists of all sexual activities that involve the use of the mouth, which may include use of the tongue, teeth, and throat, to stimulate genitalia. Cunnilingus refers to oral sex performed on a woman, and fellatio refers to oral sex performed on a man. Analingus refers to oral stimulation of the anus, and although it is a form of oral sex, the term "oral sex" usually refers to oral stimulation of the genitals. People may engage in oral sex as part of foreplay before intercourse, or during or following intercourse. It may also be performed as its own sex act.
Entspeak, please explain to us how oral sex can happen before, during and after intercourse.... if it IS intercourse. Surely you don't care since the extent of your logic goes to... just find any quote that backs up any willy nilly idea you have. Which we'll get into later.
If you're going to use Wiki as your proof that sexual intercourse does not include anal and oral sex, why did you not use the Wiki entry for sexual intercourse? I'm willing to bet that's because it doesn't support your argument. We are talking about sexual intercourse... which includes both anal and oral sex. To consummate a marriage one engages in sexual intercourse. Perhaps you can provide evidence to support your assertion that the type of sexual intercourse necessary to consummate a marriage is currently restricted to coitus?
As for what appears to be an inconsistency between two entries in Wikipedia, I can't and won't argue the inconsistencies of perception in wikiality.
QUOTE
Entspeak... you can't provide any terms... Take is a verb especially when used in the thew sense of taking a wife or husband. The part where you state your name "I, (state you name)" is declaring who is entering the contract. W