ldsfaqs wrote:Darth J wrote:Huh. Maybe you want to crack a history or anthropology book some time.
I'm well aware of the history and the extremely rare exceptions. Doesn't change the rule and definition.
Good to know! Where can I find this purported rule and definition?
Oh. So the religious definition of marriage should determine what the secular legal definition of marriage is.
Nope, I'm saying that a new definition of marriage needs to have it's OWN words and definition since you are changing the definition. Pay attention.
The definition that exists.......where?
How could the state get involved in dissolving a marriage if a marriage was not a legal relationship?
Good heavens you are one mental reject.
The state getting involved in "marriage" came to be because "divorce" started to get messy and complicated, and so to make things legally enforceable, they GOT INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE, all aspects, the marriage and the divorce.
Speaking of mental reject, I got my juris doctor from the University of Utah College of Law in 2000. Where did you get your law degree, ldsfaqs?
Anyway, while I breathlessly await some reference to the historical sources verifying your assertions about marriage and divorce, I will help you out a little here. Divorce is an equitable remedy. It is similar in some ways to the equitable remedy of rescinding a contract. That presupposes that a legal relationship exists, since you don't need equitable relief from a non-enforceable, non-legal relationship (I am aware you have no idea what "equitable relief" means). In the United States, the government cannot get take over a religious relationship and make it legal. For example, suppose the government decided it was too hard to rescind membership in a church. That would not give the government to take over religion and regulate how one joins and leaves a church. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibits that.
"Divorce being too messy so the government got involved" makes no sense on its face, because divorce is not a religious proceeding. In fact, Christian churches traditionally made it a sin to divorce. That's how the Church of England came to be.
Then there is the problem with your babbling that even if the demonstrable falsehoods you are asserting were true, they would be irrelevant. The issue is what the legal relationship means today in the United States.
They don't? You don't need a judge to sign a decree of divorce? You should probably inform everyone else in the United States of this fact nobody else has ever heard of.
Oh my friggen heavens....
If you had actually READ what I wrote with ANY sort of comprehension skills you would have noticed that that last statement was in the context of stating what SHOULD BE, and IS in relation to divorces. In other words, most marriages don't actually NEED.... pay attention now.... NEED a judge to have a divorce. I never said anything about they "are not" currently required. I was discussion an IDEA..... to get the government out of marriages, ever heard of such a thing???
So something is required, but it is not needed. Yes, it is surprising that anyone would fail to be impressed by your clarity of thought.
Of course, if you think the government should get out of marriages altogether, then you are undercutting your own argument about why the government should treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones.
Huh. I don't think you really get it that divorce is a form of equitable relief. But you think an unmarried parent has no duty to financially support his or her children, huh? That strikes you as taking responsibility for the kids someone brought into this world?
You really don't read for comprehension do you?
I'm stating that a spouse is "rewarded" for divorcing a spouse unjustly, and that spouse that doesn't get the kids, pays, get's no parental capability, no tax capability, no say in anything yet they still have to pay because of the OTHER spouses actions.
All of those issues depend on the specific facts and what is just under the circumstances. That's what "equity" means. (You'd have to, you know, read a book or something to know that.) The scenario you are proposing suggests very strongly that it is because of the non-custodial parent's actions that things would be this way. Parents can also be awarded joint legal and/or joint physical custody, depending on the parties' ability to work together and the children's best interests.
I'm saying that there needs to actual be some accountability and justice. People should not be allowed to throw away a spouse as long there is no abuse in any form, until the kids are gone.
This just means you are opposed to divorce in general. That's not relevant to Justice Kagan (concurring in
United States v. Windsor) applying the 5th Amendment to marriage as it actually exists in the real United States.
There is nothing "equitable" about an unjust/uncaused divorce. I'm not going to get in to the details otherwise, I'm just saying that people have responsibilities more than just money, that are more important than money, and situations should be judged that way.
Most people would beg to differ that forcing someone to continue indefinitely in a marriage that makes them miserable with a spouse they can't get along with is just or equitable.
quote]No. Because you have not articulated why there is anything about marriage that requires parties to be of the same sex.
I don't have time to teach you the birds and the bees.... The fact is, the heterosexuals that a heterosexual institution belongs too and has always belonged to believe our rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, any "tolerant" person would find a way to NOT infringe on others rights to define things that have always belonged to those people. [/quote]
You have a cognizable right for other people not to do things you think are sinful? Where can I find this right?
Also, ldsfaqs, let me give you a hint: the bird and the bees are irrelevant, because having children is not a legal element of marriage anywhere in the United States of America.
It is YOU who have not "articulated" other than "assumed rights" that you have a "right" to co-opt an institution that belongs to those it's belonged to since the beginning of time. YOU are the one trying to create something NEW, to change the definition of things, thus it's not us that need to "make our case". You are creating NEW LAW.... and removing old.
Hmm. Pretty sure that the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution really exist. You can read them and everything. And where is this definition you keep alluding to?
It's just like with Health Care, you FORCE it down everyone's throat even thought the majority didn't really want it, wanted something different. And you liberals and your gay's buddy's want to do the same thing. Instead of doing what's FAIR and EQUITABLE, you FORCE YOUR WILL on others.
And you mean "opposite sex" not "same sex".....
Well, I'm not a liberal, and I'm opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and that has nothing to do with whether same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection of law. Just to be clear, though, what you mean is you get to force your religious dogma on others when determining what rights other people have, but it infringes on your purported rights if the law allows people to do things that you think the Mormon god finds to be a sin.
So why should we pick your religious dogma about marriage over other people's religious dogma about marriage when deciding secular legal questions based on religious dogma?
I'm not asking you to "choose" one or another, but YOU ARE....
Yes, yes you are. There are many Christians and members of other religious traditions who are in favor of same-sex marriage.
I'm asking that you create your OWN definitions and words for things that are "different" from the traditional definition of a word. That's not intolerance nor "picking", that's being FAIR and REASONABLE.
A marriage is a legally-sanctioned domestic partnership. That's it. There is no magic definition of marriage beyond that in modern American law.
Please explain the following term: "circular reasoning."
Something is not circular reasoning when it's already been defined.
You not understanding or not agreeing is not the same thing as it not being defined.
Marriage has always been defined as between man and woman, thus that's not by definition "circular reasoning". It's part of the definition, at least until today when liberals and gays have changed the definition to include homosexuality. Look at your dictionary's and compare when part 2 was added.
The dictionary does not have the force of law. You don't appear to be aware of that, so I am telling you. So, how is it coming with your search for some legal rights and duties vested in a married couple that can't be performed by parties of the same sex?
I see. So Mormons should stop demanding to be called Christians.
Nope, because the definition is one who believes in Christ, follows him, believes on the Bible, etc. etc. Thus Mormonism fits the definition.
Other people don't agree with that definition. Therefore, they get to impose their definitions to define your private self-identity.
Evangelical anti-cult ministry's which are a MODERN thing, is who created the "new definition" of what/who Christian's are in our modern day. Secularists call us "Christians" because we follow the standard definition of what a Christian is, Evangelicals have created a new definition that only belongs to them. It is they who are "abnormal" who have changed definitions of a word, not Mormons.
So, wrong again....
As it turns out, modern Western romantic love between only one man and only one woman who are equal partners is also a MODERN thing.
What specific right of yours is being infringed upon?
You know, you are never going to understand anything, and I'm never going to respect you in any form if you keep acting "ignorant". Marriage has been defined one way, and only one way, the extremely rare exception which most often wasn't even called marriage, doesn't change "the rule". I have a right for the word that's been defined historically to remain as it has always meant, and not changed, warped and perverted to mean something else, like they/you have already done to the word "gay". But marriage is even worse, because it's a part of our ideals, is sacred, etc. That is the right being infringed upon, the co-opting of something sacred to us and perverting it into something else.
You have the right to the meaning of a word merely because you are a self-described religious heterosexual? What basis in the Constitution are you relying on for this asserted right?
It would be like this.... If you had a tree in your yard, and it was a family tree, something sacred to your family, father and son traditions with it, etc., and someone came along and said you couldn't cut it the way you do anymore, the STANDARD tree cutting way, that EVERYONE ELSE also cuts their trees as, the standard grooming practice from the beginning of time, but you must cut it too look like a PENIS from now on, and everyone else must cut their tree to look like a PENIS, would you think that was right or reasonable? Especially, if you say those demanding this are perfectly free to cut "their own trees" as PENISES, creating a NEW NAME for their tree cutting Method, i.e. Penis Tree Cut Method (i.e. Gayarriage) thus you don't understand why people would be forcing your tree to also look like penises, forcing this new cutting method on you which is NOTHING like the old cutting method. Sure, it's still a tree, but it's a warped and perverted tree, cut with a warped and perverted method.
Would you find this reasonable? And you think our "rights" aren't being infringed upon?
I see. Kind of like how marriage used to encompass arranged marriages, group marriages, polyandry, legally-sanctioned wife beating, a wife having no legal rights independent of her husband, marriage by kidnapping, dowries, and so forth, but it doesn't anymore, and you take it for granted that these traditions that existed for centuries of human history are not part of "traditional marriage.," and you feel at liberty to call modern Western romantic conventions "marriage" instead of inventing a new word to describe a modern institution that bears little resemblance to marriage as it has actually existed throughout history.