Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did Texas Ban Marriage?

  1. Nov 16, 2005 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Somebody at Mother Jones noticed this - HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.
    :rofl: :rofl:
    :biggrin: I think the stupidity speaks for itself. :rolleyes:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2005 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It shows what overzealous Texans (do not) possess in their skull cavities.

    The ban is clearly unconstitutional, and the first person to sue will have it thrown out by a court. So much for their gay-bashing plans, ha !
     
  4. Nov 16, 2005 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's too funny Astronuc.

    I do not understand why people are homophobic, it's ridiculous.
     
  5. Nov 16, 2005 #4

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    but .. but.. thats begging the question! :tongue2:

    I mean Texas wont indulge itself in non-logical whatchamacallem's!
     
  6. Nov 16, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think it's about time.

    Men unite: Ban marriage!!! :biggrin:
     
  7. Nov 16, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is egg-heady coastal elitism? Do Texans have some kind of inferiority complex?
     
  8. Nov 16, 2005 #7

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Isn't gay marriage more a religious issue than a homophobic one? I've not been following this, so I may well be missing something here.
     
  9. Nov 16, 2005 #8
    It's mostly that the religious people are homophobes.
     
  10. Nov 16, 2005 #9
    Homophobia is a much bigger problem for Gay marriage then religious nuts in Canada... but we already legalized it nation-wide, so it doesnt matter anymore.

    Personally, Im against gay marriage, but (predictably) for different reasons. Then again, I dont actually know how marriage works so chances are these reasons are completely nonsensical

    edit: im opposed to all marriage, btw, not singling out.
     
  11. Nov 16, 2005 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's poorly worded, but it doesn't outlaw marriage - it's talking about other concepts not using the same name as a way to get around the law (ie, "civil union"). "Identical...to marriage" can't mean marriage itself because to be identical,you need to be separate: ie, you can't be your own identical twin if you are only one person.
     
  12. Nov 16, 2005 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's what I see in this issue. Some politicians have even gone so far as to call marriage sacred. Now, that may well be, but I don't think the Constitution has anything to say about it. And the argument in any similar context crosses the line separating church and state. But beyond that, however you wish to view it, the spiritual, philosophical, and moral aspects of marriage is rooted in religion and confined to the domain of churches and philosophers. Since any church can refuse to perform gay marriages, the only issue is that of marriage under civil law, which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a civil union. Philosophers may also refuse to perform gay marriages. :biggrin:

    This really gets down to issues of insurance, inheritance, tax breaks, social security, and the practical benefits of having a partner in life. So to me this is a matter of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the concept of a civil union could be applied to many situations that have nothing to do with sexuality. For example, two brothers, sisters, or friends of the same sex or not may choose to partner for practical reasons. So the legal benefits found in marriage could be a great help to the poor, the infirmed and elderly, and other people who never happened to marry.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2005
  13. Nov 16, 2005 #12

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's a complicated issue... Where as I wholely agree that gay couple should be able to have a marriage that is recognised by the state, I'm not so sure about one recognised by the church, but then I'm not religious, so it's not really my place to tell the church what they should do.

    Is there no way to get a marriage not recognised by the church, but recognised by the state? It seems to me that the two should be seperate.
     
  14. Nov 16, 2005 #13

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm no legal expert, but mathematically and logically speaking, an element of any system must first satisfy the identity relation, x=x, which means that every element should be identical to itself.

    In fact, Russ, can you name something other than (or "separate from") marriage that is identical to it ? If it were identical, how could it have a different name. Alternatively, if marriage and thingummy were identical, how would you tell which was which ? An inherent contradiction, no ?

    The only thing that is identical to marriage is marriage, in just the same way that the only thing identical to a red, rubber ball of 5" diameter is a red, rubber ball of 5" diameter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2005
  15. Nov 16, 2005 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The two are separate. Marriage is only legal if recognized by the state. Some people want to get married in a church and if the priest/pastor/whatever is sanctioned to do so by the state, they can perform the ceremony and do the paperwork and then submit it to the state for the couple.
     
  16. Nov 16, 2005 #15
    I can't be my own identical twin, but I am certainly identical to myself; the twin issue just complicates the identity issue. I am defined by the sum of all my qualities; which constitute my identity. My identity is held only by me, and the only thing identical to me - the only thing having the same identity as me - is me. I can't be an identical twin, because twins are 2 people, but I can be identical to myself. In the equation 5 = 5, there's only 1 distinct quantity, yet it is identical to itself.
     
  17. Nov 16, 2005 #16

    Art

    User Avatar

    What about the first part
    Who's the poor sap they're going to let marry?
     
  18. Nov 16, 2005 #17

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    They don't mean that only one marriage can take place in the state, Art. Duh!

    Anyway, I say we let Gokul and Russ argue each side as if they were constitutional lawyers, then vote on whether or not Texas allows marriage in their state.
     
  19. Nov 16, 2005 #18
    I second the motion
     
  20. Nov 17, 2005 #19

    Art

    User Avatar

    Err Lyn it was a joke :biggrin: but they should 'say what they mean and mean what they say' as the cheshire cat said to Alice in Wonderland. :smile:
     
  21. Nov 17, 2005 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Soooooo not worth my time. Just one response:
    I already gave an example: civil union. Heck, you can even call it "Bob" if you want!
    The same way a car and an automobile can be the same thing but have different names.

    That's kinda besides the point, though: the point is to disallow both co-opting the word "marriage" to describe something else not included in their definition and giving other terms equivalency under the law. Ie, changing tax laws to allow people who are married and people joined in a "civil union" to file jointly.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Did Texas Ban Marriage?
  1. Politics and marriage (Replies: 74)

Loading...