Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute

Belk said:

Appeal to tradition. Simply because marriage was different in the past is not a reason to keep it the same. Do you wish you had payed your wife's bride price in goats?



I, along with the rest of society, are free to define marriage however we wish.




I am married and have no children.



<Looks at his married gay friends> Nope. They are married.



Marriage started as a secular event and it is only within the last thousand years that it has become religious. Prior to that the church saw it as a function of the state.

Click to expand...

It is an inherent logical fallacy and a fiction that any two people can be married. The inherent meaning of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together before God in a covenant who become a family (in most cases).

You can say any other configuration of people are "married" but that doesn't make it so. Lots of money has been poured into demanding that others recognize the fiction, but that doesn't make it so.

Marriage did not start as a secular event in any way; it is a covenant between a man and a woman established by God starting in the garden. It was always covenantal. Other subsequent "spouses" weren't even recognized in law or by the church if you were married to someone.

Other people can co-opt the term, but that doesn't change the meaning.

The emotional and illogical appeal to postmodernity does not erase the meaning of marriage.

dqhall said:

Over half the states do not protect same-sex couples from housing discrimination. Twenty-two states protect same-sex couples from housing discrimination. Not all landlords or property management companies would discriminate anyway. Bakeries and restaurants seldom discriminated.

I have a community phone directory. Most of us own our own homes, a few rent. I looked through it. Most units are occupied by married couples. Some are occupied by single, divorced or widowed people. Some are occupied by unmarried hetero couples. Some units are occupied by two women. I met two women housemates as they helped organize a community supper once a month in one of the community centers. They are retirement aged Catholics. I would not accuse or judge them. Perhaps some poor widows had to share homes.

Some college age people lived in same sex dorm rooms. That is not homosexuality.

Click to expand...

I knew of three widowed ladies who resided together out of making ends meet in my parents retirement community.

RestoreTheJoy said:

It is an inherent logical fallacy and a fiction that any two people can be married.

Click to expand...

No, it is not a logical fallacy. Marriage is defined by humans not the other way around.

RestoreTheJoy said:

The inherent meaning of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together before God in a covenant who become a family (in most cases).

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I am married and I am not in a covenant with any God.

RestoreTheJoy said:

You can say any other configuration of people are "married" but that doesn't make it so. Lots of money has been poured into demanding that others recognize the fiction, but that doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

Marriage is defined by law. The law makes it so.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Marriage did not start as a secular event in any way; it is a covenant between a man and a woman established by God starting in the garden. It was always covenantal. Other subsequent "spouses" weren't even recognized in law or by the church if you were married to someone.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, it did.

In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.

It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God.

Click to expand...

https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/history/article/brief-history-marriage/

RestoreTheJoy said:

Other people can co-opt the term, but that doesn't change the meaning.

The emotional and illogical appeal to postmodernity does not erase the meaning of marriage.

Click to expand...

Claims of tradition and appeal to authority does not change the fact that marriage is a civil legal institution and it is controlled by, and is a function of, all of society.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Because it isn't marriage. You cannot say that nonmarriage=marriage.

There is nothing to limit the meaning of marriage now that the Supreme Court made such an egregious call. It can mean two old fishing buddies who enter this legal contract so that both of them can use the better insurance.

Click to expand...

it is and was a marriage long before the courts got involved. Personal prejudice wont change that

RestoreTheJoy said:

The cause of action that the attorney filed was exactly as I stated.

They entered a contract in Massachusetts in 2009. It was not legal marriage in the country (but it was in Massachusetts). That is what I said. Get your facts straight.

Click to expand...

it was legal, failure to recognize it was the illegal part.

RestoreTheJoy said:

They entered a contract in Massachusetts in 2009. It was not legal marriage in the country (but it was in Massachusetts).

Click to expand...

Yeah but that was just politicians redefining marriage, and we all know how bad that is.

RestoreTheJoy said:

It is an inherent logical fallacy and a fiction that any two people can be married. The inherent meaning of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together before God in a covenant who become a family (in most cases).

Click to expand...

Not in this country. Such a law would run head-first into the establishment clause.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Because it isn't marriage. You cannot say that nonmarriage=marriage.

Click to expand...

Says who?

There is nothing to limit the meaning of marriage now that the Supreme Court made such an egregious call. It can mean two old fishing buddies who enter this legal contract so that both of them can use the better insurance.

Click to expand...

They could have done that before... women like to fish, too...

SilverBear said:

you are the one making up the story, its up to you to keep track of its details

Click to expand...

Am I? I never knew that.

Episaw said:

Am I? I never knew that.

Click to expand...

you are responsible for your own fairy tales

SilverBear said:

you are responsible for your own fairy tales

Click to expand...

Am I? I never knew that.

TLK Valentine said:

Says who?

Click to expand...

The Word of God.

KCfromNC said:

Not in this country. Such a law would run head-first into the establishment clause.

Click to expand...

Sure, today, to someone with an agenda to push.

But it was understood to be so by all, until about 20+ years ago.

KCfromNC said:

Yeah but that was just politicians redefining marriage, and we all know how bad that is.

Click to expand...

Agree. What God has established, politicians would do well to leave alone, like marriage.

SilverBear said:

it was legal, failure to recognize it was the illegal part.

Click to expand...

False. It was not marriage in 2009 in this country. Only in Massachusetts and a few left wing states.

SilverBear said:

it is and was a marriage long before the courts got involved. Personal prejudice wont change that

Click to expand...

Prejudice is completely irrelevant here.

We can call it "marriage", but it is no more marriage than a dog is a cat, or a man is a woman, or the emperor has beautiful clothes. A delusion does not become truth simply because you indoctrinate as many people as possible to repeat it and believe it.

It is a Classic Nazi technique, and quite effective though. Joseph Goebbels said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

It worked then. It worked again here. But it doesn't change truth.

Belk said:

No, it is not a logical fallacy. Marriage is defined by humans not the other way around.





C

Click to expand...

No. Marriage is defined by God. Jesus reiterated it.

It has nothing to do with the law. The law wouldn't be involved at all except that an economic decision was made to privilege marriage for tax and inheritance reasons, for the protection of the family.

jayem said:

In the legal sense, now it is a marriage.



So what? Do you really think men and women have never gotten married for frivolous, or self-serving reasons? The state's role is to set the legal requirements for issuing a marriage license. Anything before and after that is the couple's business.

Click to expand...

Since 2015, yes, one is required to deem it "marriage". One must abide by this legal fiction under penalty of law, the same way we have to pretend some 6'8" linebacker is a woman if he says he is, and the law will recognize it.

Neither is the truth. It is simply the disparate state of the law at the time.

redleghunter said:

I knew of three widowed ladies who resided together out of making ends meet in my parents retirement community.

Click to expand...

Then it was a logical pooling of resources for economic reasons.

Today, they could undertake litigation, demanding to be recognized as three spouses, should they choose to do so for economic or other political reasons. Absolutely nothing prevents this now except a silly little law that marriage should be between two people.