SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[Spur38]

I do realize it, thank you.

I think I want to marry several wives (simulataneously). You cool with that?

Masochist! One is enough! Do you realize how many shoes there would be in the house?

[brickhistory]

Absolutely. If you and the wives are consenting and of age. My wife likes that new Polygamy show a lot, and they bring up a lot of the same points gay people bring up. Valid points IMHO.

Ok, so you acknowledge that it's game on for a brave new world as long as everyone consents - DoD benefits for multiple wives, kids, TRICARE, etc., same for Social Security, tax filings, the whole bit.

Kudos for consistency of the standard.

Masochist! One is enough! Do you realize how many shoes there would be in the house?

You assume the current, primary wife, much less any auxilary ones would be allowed to wear any...(which seems to be the stereotype given to anyone who finds homosexuality as wrong. ((Not looking to justify my beliefs or views here. I have my beliefs, my standards, my view on what is right and wrong. I've changed some over the years, but for now, this issue is as wrong as two boys fcuking...))

[Day Man]

I hope every straight E marries their roommate, moves into a sweet place, and splits the increase in BAH. Following rules for personal gain is nothing to be frowned upon. People get butthurt because Apple evades taxes, but it's legal. As Rainman would say (although probably not about this), know the threat and notch accordingly.

And to stir the pot some more, I'm willing to bet a bottle of Makers that 90% of people here against gay marriage follow some form of Judeo-Christian religion.

[Flaco]

Following rules for personal gain is nothing to be frowned upon. People get butthurt because Apple evades taxes, but it's legal.

Like this guy, right?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219185/-Tammy-Duckworth-blasts-federal-contractor-who-got-preferential-status-for-football-injury

And to stir the pot some more, I'm willing to bet a bottle of Makers that 90% of people here against gay marriage follow some form of Judeo-Christian religion.

If you mean that I believe there is a higher moral code than the incredibly flawed one I come up with when I wake up in the morning, then yes, in my case you would be correct.

[Vertigo]

...but neither was same-sex marriage. Therefore, you are redefining it

Yes it was. One example is Pan Zhang and Wang Zhongxian from the early Zhou dynasty in China (1046–256 BC).

Same sex marital practices and rituals were recognized in Mesopatamia. Same with Assyria.

Roman Emperor Elaglabus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave named Hierocles as his husband. He also married a male athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome.

So again CHRISTIANITY redefined marriage to one man one woman. Homosexual marriages, while it may not have been common, DID occur prior to Christianity. So no the word marriage is not being redefined- it's being returned to it's original definition.

Masochist! One is enough! Do you realize how many shoes there would be in the house?

Just marry women with the same sized feet. They can share.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Vertigo

[HeloDude]

So again CHRISTIANITY redefined marriage to one man one woman. Homosexual marriages, while it may not have been common, DID occur prior to Christianity. So no the word marriage is not being redefined- it's being returned to it's original definition.

Pretty sure ancient Judaism was one man and one woman too, which would pre-date Christianity, though I could be wrong.

Just marry women with the same sized feet. They can share.

Who says they get to wear any shoes at all?

[discus]

Pretty sure ancient Judaism was one man and one woman too, which would pre-date Christianity, though I could be wrong.

You mean all those guys who had multiple wives in the bible? Sure sounds like that's exactly how ancient Judaism defined it.

Edited June 28, 2013 by discus

[WAG]

Yes it was. One example is Pan Zhang and Wang Zhongxian from the early Zhou dynasty in China (1046–256 BC).

Same sex marital practices and rituals were recognized in Mesopatamia. Same with Assyria.

Roman Emperor Elaglabus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave named Hierocles as his husband. He also married a male athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome.

So again CHRISTIANITY redefined marriage to one man one woman. Homosexual marriages, while it may not have been common, DID occur prior to Christianity. So no the word marriage is not being redefined- it's being returned to it's original definition.

Just marry women with the same sized feet. They can share.

Your Wikipedia "facts" (assume you typed in same sex marriage) basically refute your own argument. After reading that section of the page, almost all the examples point to the fact that homosexual relationships existed (big surprise) but were not traditional unions within their various cultures. The Mesopotamia statement doesn't even include a useful reference (ibid, wtf?). Funny how you leave the most important part of that section out too:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).^[85] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."^[86] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.^[87]

Referencing the interpretation of obscure ancient texts sure is convenient when trying to support an agenda, but when it comes to the most followed and enduring religions of our time, ancient texts and scrolls quickly become scoffed and discredited.

Edited June 28, 2013 by WAG

[Vertigo]

http://digitalcommon...text=fss_papers

Start with page 20

Edited June 28, 2013 by Vertigo

[HeloDude]

You mean all those guys who had multiple wives in the bible? Sure sounds like that's exactly how ancient Judaism defined it.

Yeah, my timing is off--damn it, I was wrong, my bad. I knew it was practiced in times of David, etc but I thought Jewish law had outlawed polygamy by the time of Christ (ie ancient Judaism) because the Romans were't really cool with polygamy. Further research (ie google) gives a more common answer of 1000 AD and also of note, polygamy wasn't non-existent in the very beginning of the Christian Church. Thanks for the correction.

[WAG]

http://digitalcommon...text=fss_papers

Start with page 20

Thanks for getting an actual source, seriously. I read a good portion of it...Unfortunately, the author admits

Because there are so few surviving records pertaining to family and

sexual matters, we know little of the most ancient cultures' specific

practices, namely, those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and their environs.

However, after examining the few pertinent records (including legal

documents), as well as the literature, myths, and artifacts of this

period, one might tentatively conclude that most ancient cultures did

not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them.

Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may

have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving

different-sex partners.

The openly homosexual professor/author (doubt he has bias on this topic) consistently demonstrates individual interpretation ("may have" and "perhaps") throughout the text and even admits there is not much evidence to support the case for same sex marriages in ancient times (accepted relationships, yes.. marriages, no). He even states the evidence is debatable. This source doesn't inspire much confidence, but "Hey! He taught at Yale!" I'll leave the topic of liberal indoctrination by academia for another discussion.

[Rmarsh]

Take a second and think of how many divorced people you know versus how many gay people you know. Think about how many people you know who grew up with divorced parents versus gay parents. Yet no one could care less. No protests, no prayer breakfasts. Brittany Spears is married (while intoxicated, no less) and single again less than 69 hours later, but a committed homosexual couple seeking life-long marriage is labeled the downfall of society and family.

Not that it in any way represents a statistically significant sample group, but I think that there are more anecdotal mockeries of the sanctity of marriage than just Brittney Spears... And they proffited in the millions for this. The gays are probably responsible, though.

http://en.wikipedia...._Kris_Humphries

"Several news outlets surmised that Kardashian's marriage to Humphries was merely a publicity stunt, to promote the Kardashian family's brand and their subsequent television ventures"

Disclaimer: NOT representative, merely anecdotal.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Rmarsh

[pawnman]

Pretty sure ancient Judaism was one man and one woman too, which would pre-date Christianity, though I could be wrong.

Who says they get to wear any shoes at all?

Judaism has a long series of valid marriages, but man-man isn't among them. I'll let Betty Bowers explain what "biblical" marriage meant to the Jews prior to Jesus:

So, man and wife, man and wife and wife's sister, man and wife and man's brother's wife, man and wife and any females he can grab from a conquered country...lots of options there.

[Vertigo]

Thanks for getting an actual source, seriously. I read a good portion of it...Unfortunately, the author admits

Because there are so few surviving records pertaining to family and

sexual matters, we know little of the most ancient cultures' specific

practices, namely, those of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and their environs.

However, after examining the few pertinent records (including legal

documents), as well as the literature, myths, and artifacts of this

period, one might tentatively conclude that most ancient cultures did

not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them.

Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may

have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving

different-sex partners.

The openly homosexual professor/author (doubt he has bias on this topic) consistently demonstrates individual interpretation ("may have" and "perhaps") throughout the text and even admits there is not much evidence to support the case for same sex marriages in ancient times (accepted relationships, yes.. marriages, no). He even states the evidence is debatable. This source doesn't inspire much confidence, but "Hey! He taught at Yale!" I'll leave the topic of liberal indoctrination by academia for another discussion.

In other words "I'll stick with my book of fairy tales to rely on giving me the truth"

Edited June 28, 2013 by Vertigo

[Gravedigger]

If this is going to be an argument over the sanctity of marriage, defined by Christianity, then we need to also stop atheists, agnostics, Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, celebrities et al from getting married. I have atheist friends that got married in a church, and nobody had a problem with that. The bottom line is that as much as some of you guys claim, marriage is not a religious matter, unless you practice a religion. To everyone else, it is really just a legal contract. When I got married in a courthouse in CA, there was nothing religious about it. Hell in my Oath of Office I said God more times than my marriage ceremony. When we later did our church wedding, it was a religious event that had a lot of meaning for everyone involved. But I had been legally married for almost a year by then.

As a Christian the last thing in the world I want is for the Church or Bible to dictate our laws. There are places where that's the case: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan...and women are stoned for being raped. Sure it's nice that Christianity is the dominant religion now, but what happens in 30 years when it's not? I completely understand freedom of religion not freedom from religion, but religious freedom stops the moment you try to control the freedom of others by projecting your religious beliefs on them.

[WAG]

They can't marry because their marriage might incite polygamy and/or incest according to you. .....A statement telling them that the burden of preventing justifications for polygamy and incest in our society somehow rests on their shoulders and means they can't wed, even though they themselves are not bigamists or incestuous offenders.

Continuing to not answer my question...

You're continuing to prove my point. You keep trying to make this about polygamy instead of about gay marriage.

No. This is a discussion about where we draw the line on "civil rights"...and a valid discussion given the SCOTUS ruling which legitimately opens the door for this topic. Yes, the burden is on you now.

When did I say I was willing to deny the rights of other people's sexual desires? Or that you were close-minded? ...you were saying something about putting words into mouths? ....and about hypocrisy?

I'm sorry. You are right. Maybe you could help me then by answering the damn question.

I didn't say anything about anyone else's rights. .....oddly enough I'm trying to stick to the subject of gays and gay marriage.

Actually, you are not sticking to the subject I was discussing...you're the one that replied to my post.

Statistics regarding the divorce rate vary greatly. This one guy's research suggests it's closer to 30%....and he used the word "myth" in the title so he must be right. Fine. Call it 30%. It doesn't matter. The point is that it's significant and yet totally overlooked by the same people who decry homosexuality's impact on the sanctity of marriage and the family structure.

The same statistics can be drawn from CDC research. I gave you that link in an attempt dumb it down for you. My point is that divorce rates and the sociological reasons for divorce are pretty inconclusive and fuzzy (as you mentioned in your first sentence). We know very little about it. In other words, it doesn't help your argument. Especially when you spew your "talking points" statistics.

Edited June 28, 2013 by WAG

[338skybolt]

If my neighbor wants to marry his boyfriend how the ###### does that affect my wife and I?

Because their lawn would be nicer than yours.

[pawnman]

Because their lawn would be nicer than yours.

That only improves the property values when it comes time to sell the house.

[WAG]

In other words "I'll stick with my book of fairy tales to rely on giving me the truth"

Can't say I didn't call this one. Hypocrisy thy name is Vertigo.

[brickhistory]

I said A) the anti-gay crowd has all but given up trying to debate actual gay marriage.

War's over, man, Wormer dropped the big one...

In no way negates the soon to be filed "marriage equality" lawsuits by polygamists and lots of other cats and dogs...

[jcj]

It doesn't work for Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses. It also doesn't automatically work for various professional licenses (ie pharmacists, lawyers, etc).

Actually it does work pretty much automatically in federal service for medical, nursing, legal and (I think) pharmacist licenses. If you are working in one of these professions in federal service (such as in the Armed Forces, or the VA, or the Dep't of Justice, etc.) you are required to have an active license from a U.S. state or territory - but it doesn't have to be from the state you're actually working in. For example you can be a military doc stationed and working in Florida with a Mississippi license (doing your military job only, moonlighting on the non-fed side requires a valid license in that state even if you are a fed worker during the day).

I don't know if this would be directly relevant, but there's precedent for the federal system to honor a valid marriage license held by a same-sex couple and obtained in a state where it's recognized - even if they later move to a non same-sex marriage state. One question will be what about the state-level issues for same sex couples who are married in a same-sex state and move to a non same sex state?

And of course CCW licenses aren't really relevant on any federal installation.

[HeloDude]

Actually it does work pretty much automatically in federal service for medical, nursing, legal and (I think) pharmacist licenses. If you are working in one of these professions in federal service (such as in the Armed Forces, or the VA, or the Dep't of Justice, etc.) you are required to have an active license from a U.S. state or territory - but it doesn't have to be from the state you're actually working in. For example you can be a military doc stationed and working in Florida with a Mississippi license (doing your military job only, moonlighting on the non-fed side requires a valid license in that state even if you are a fed worker during the day).

I don't know if this would be directly relevant, but there's precedent for the federal system to honor a valid marriage license held by a same-sex couple and obtained in a state where it's recognized - even if they later move to a non same-sex marriage state. One question will be what about the state-level issues for same sex couples who are married in a same-sex state and move to a non same sex state?

And of course CCW licenses aren't really relevant on any federal installation.

The original discussion/question that I responded to had nothing to do with anything federal...besides, repeal of DOMA has pretty much settled that one. Marriage licenses issued by a specific State are not federal contracts. Same with professional licensees issued at the State level--we're not talking federal service here, we're talking State to State.

There's a lot more to living in this country than just us folks who are in the military/work for the federal government. As of now, I do not believe that Oklahoma (not the federal government or federal installation) 'has' to recognize a marriage license from Massachusetts. That being said, Article IV, Section 1 could make that unConstitutional, but then at the same time could force States to recognize all licenses of other States, which they currently do not as I previously pointed out.

Like I said, it will be an interesting next few months/years to see how this all plays out.

[Vertigo]

Can't say I didn't call this one. Hypocrisy thy name is Vertigo.

I'm sorry I'm intolerant of your intolerance.

[WAG]

I'm sorry I'm intolerant of your intolerance.

Don't worry. I'm not actually offended by someone who subscribes to a moral code that embraces the sexual intercourse between siblings and who knows what else...

[Vertigo]

Don't worry. I'm not actually offended by someone who subscribes to a moral code that embraces the sexual intercourse between siblings and who knows what else...

Embraces? Nah, more like indifference. I live my life, I let them live theirs as long as it's consensual and between adults.

I'm sorry you feel your moral code dictates that you intervene in other people's lives to the point they have to adhere to your standards. It's sad you were born in this nation (I assume) yet Freedom and Liberty is a concept that is foreign to you

Edited June 29, 2013 by Vertigo