Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[eider]

Most states allow for girls to marry at much younger ages.
In Virginia, a girl can be married at age 12 if she is pregnant.

Is that still lawful?
Google has items which explain that new US (federal?) legislation in 2016 raised the minimum age to 16yrs, introduced in 2017?

Or is the US pushing such legislation as Virginia's beneath the media's line of sight?

 

[glassjester]

And so minors can marry..... yes?


Never...... I never could have guessed. You were just so instructive yesterday.
Did you think that an 18yr old lady could marry a 6tr old boy, by any chance.

...... it might be best for you to just quote your States/Country's legislation, because most everything you write about it is horribly misleading.

Alright.

In New Jersey, the minimum age is 16 with parental consent, or 18 otherwise.

What is your point, anyway? You never actually said what it was.

 

[glassjester]

Of course they don't!
A marriage service repeats the word a few times.
But come on, just think, and then tell us all why common-sense legislation would omit any definition of, or use of, or inclusion of..... the word 'Love'.

Feel free to quote the legislation that does include the word "love."

 

[glassjester]

Oh...... no!
Disagree with Dosey?
What would be the point of that?

Your mind surely cannot have figured that I would ever support the idea or prasctice of very young folks marrying?

What was it? 45-6 ? Who would even think like that...... you?

Do you agree that would be wrong, then?

 

[glassjester]

No........ lipstick is the same.
Our definitions do differ, but not about lipstick, more about open-mind.

You must worry so much about how you dress, cut your hair, walk, sit, talk........ I mean, any bigot could look, get the wrong idea and point finger at you, shouting their prejudice.

Whatever, Eider.

 

[MrDante]

Strange, though, that none of our laws about marriage make any mention of love.

They also don't mention the "purpose" of marriage, fertilty or Christianity

 

[MrDante]

You've accused me of this before.

The first time, you may have been mistaken.
I corrected you. Which means now it is just plain dishonest.

Please show me where I ever said that homosexuals are incapable of love or commitment.
I'll save you some time - I've never said it. Because I do not believe it.

yet you refuse to speak on anything but sex

What I do believe, however, is that marriage cannot be regulated solely on the basis of "being in love."

Do you believe it should be?

I'm unaware of anyone actually saying that

 

[Town Heretic]

Feel free to quote the legislation that does include the word "love."

It can apparently vary state to state. For instance, I was just looking at Connecticut's manual for justices of the peace and it has love in the vows as recited by the JP in every iteration. So within the exercise of a JP's powers, each possible speech made in authority contains love.

Here's the "no ring" minimal version:

3. NO RING CEREMONY Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to love, honor and cherish her through sickness and in health, through times of happiness and travail, until death do you part?
Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband, to love, honor and cherish him through sickness and in health, through periods of tranquility and travail, until death do you part?

(The parties are now directed to join hands.) Having joined hands, the person officiating will say:

"By the act of joining hands you take to yourself the relation of husband and wife and solemnly promise to love, honor, comfort and cherish each other so long as you both shall live. Therefore, in accordance with the law of Connecticut and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the law of Connecticut I do pronounce you husband and wife."

 

[Rusha]

Is that still lawful?
Google has items which explain that new US (federal?) legislation in 2016 raised the minimum age to 16yrs, introduced in 2017?

Or is the US pushing such legislation as Virginia's beneath the media's line of sight?

It shouldn't be ... there is no good reason for kids to marry ... and I would include anyone under the age of 18.

 

[glassjester]

It can apparently vary state to state. For instance, I was just looking at Connecticut's manual for justices of the peace and it has love in the vows as recited by the JP in every iteration. So within the exercise of a JP's powers, each possible speech made in authority contains love.

Here's the "no ring" minimal version:

3. NO RING CEREMONY Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to love, honor and cherish her through sickness and in health, through times of happiness and travail, until death do you part?
Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband, to love, honor and cherish him through sickness and in health, through periods of tranquility and travail, until death do you part?

(The parties are now directed to join hands.) Having joined hands, the person officiating will say:

"By the act of joining hands you take to yourself the relation of husband and wife and solemnly promise to love, honor, comfort and cherish each other so long as you both shall live. Therefore, in accordance with the law of Connecticut and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the law of Connecticut I do pronounce you husband and wife."

Are the vows required in Connecticut marriages? Is love required by law, to get a marriage license?

Or... can couples wed without any love?


Also, is there any example of a couple being allowed to legally wed, bot not legally allowed to engage in sexual intercourse?

 

[Angel4Truth]

They also don't mention the "purpose" of marriage, fertilty or Christianity

And Jesus never said gays could marry and He completely defined marriage as a man and a woman and even points directly back to creation of a man and a woman.

 

[Town Heretic]

Are the vows required in Connecticut marriages? Is love required by law, to get a marriage license?

Or... can couples wed without any love?


Also, is there any example of a couple being allowed to legally wed, bot not legally allowed to engage in sexual intercourse?

I was just giving you what you asked for, glass. Why was it important to begin with?

 

[eider]

Feel free to quote the legislation that does include the word "love."

All I need do is repeat my previous post........ how's your comprehension this morning?

Originally Posted by eider

Of course they don't!
A marriage service repeats the word a few times.
But come on, just think, and then tell us all why common-sense legislation would omit any definition of, or use of, or inclusion of..... the word 'Love'.

 

[eider]

Do you agree that would be wrong, then?

Yeah, but who sits in their armchair and wonders about adults of 45 having sexual acts with children of 6?

The next thing you know, they're seeing an adult of circa 45yrs in the park playing with a child of 6yrs and beginining to spin up all manner of nasty ideas.

Evil be who evil thinks.

 

[eider]

yet you refuse to speak on anything but sex

The above sent to another member.
I try to imagine what it might be like to live in the same street or district as some folks here.
Can you imgaine what it might be like for a man who is a professional teacher of infants, and who is often seen with children? The % of male infant teachers is growing here, but it could be dangerous for such professionals in other countries.
...Or the lady neighbour who gets a lift to her work from the man who lives across the street?

Quite a few middle class streets in Britain were like this..... back in the 50's Nosey slanderers were called 'curtain twitchers' or something like that. Very dangerous people, curtain-twitchers....

 

[eider]

It can apparently vary state to state. For instance, I was just looking at Connecticut's manual for justices of the peace and it has love in the vows as recited by the JP in every iteration. So within the exercise of a JP's powers, each possible speech made in authority contains love.

Here's the "no ring" minimal version:

3. NO RING CEREMONY Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife, to love, honor and cherish her through sickness and in health, through times of happiness and travail, until death do you part?
Do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband, to love, honor and cherish him through sickness and in health, through periods of tranquility and travail, until death do you part?

(The parties are now directed to join hands.) Having joined hands, the person officiating will say:

"By the act of joining hands you take to yourself the relation of husband and wife and solemnly promise to love, honor, comfort and cherish each other so long as you both shall live. Therefore, in accordance with the law of Connecticut and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the law of Connecticut I do pronounce you husband and wife."

Hi........
The UK definition of marriage (Marriage Act1949) is simply 'the union of a man and a woman', now changed to include SSM.

The Registrars' (JP's) words in the marriage ceremony can include (mostly) whatever the couple wish but they have to formally take each other into the union.

So the legislation defines it only as 'a union'

Our legislation would not dare to use words in the definition like 'love', 'obey', 'multiply' (!) etc because immediately each word chosen has to be defined....... tricky! Imagine the divorce court proceedings.... 'E never loved me proper like what it says, yer 'onner, innit!' :chuckle:

 

[eider]

It shouldn't be ... there is no good reason for kids to marry ... and I would include anyone under the age of 18.

OK, but 50 years ago a mate of mine 22years old, married his 16yr old fiance in Coggeshal Church, Essex. The bride bullied her parents into agreeing, but mostly everybody agreed that the marriage might last a fortnight.
They are great-great-grandparents now. Most amazing marriage I ever knew.

Each couple must be judged upon their own, if they must be judged at all.

 

[MrDante]

And Jesus never said gays could marry and He completely defined marriage as a man and a woman and even points directly back to creation of a man and a woman.

He never said they couldn't either.

 

[glassjester]

The above sent to another member.
I try to imagine what it might be like to live in the same street or district as some folks here.
Can you imgaine what it might be like for a man who is a professional teacher of infants, and who is often seen with children? The % of male infant teachers is growing here, but it could be dangerous for such professionals in other countries.
...Or the lady neighbour who gets a lift to her work from the man who lives across the street?

Quite a few middle class streets in Britain were like this..... back in the 50's Nosey slanderers were called 'curtain twitchers' or something like that. Very dangerous people, curtain-twitchers....

Whatever, Eider.

 

[glassjester]

Our legislation would not dare to use words in the definition like 'love', 'obey', 'multiply' (!) etc because immediately each word chosen has to be defined....... tricky! Imagine the divorce court proceedings.... 'E never loved me proper like what it says, yer 'onner, innit!' :chuckle:

So the legal regulation of marriage isn't based on love, then. Do we agree on that?