i still dont see how ANY religion has anything at all to do with this.
Bigotry , ignorace , and just a big case of " I know whats better for you than you do" yes i see that here , but no reason at all for this to have even evolved into a religious debate.
none.
Whats someone beleives isnt the case here , its can a same sex husband /wife get same tax breaks , pass on debt inheritance etc, nothing else. Nothing about any chruch / pastor / priest etc doing anything other than what their church mandates.
trying to spin this into something religious is scary , because setting a precedent like this can do horrible things when the next target happens to be your religion.
Dont beleive me ? ask any jewish person what happens when you are the target of restrictive laws.
Sad to see so many people in the USA actively and with such strong enotion wanting to travel that road.
this is that one step that could lead to disaster , I've been to a place from a time in history, and i saw a gate that told me "works makes free" .. and a path lead me to a place i will never in my life set foot on again because it was evil , ugly, and made by men. I touched a monument there , and i read the words , and somehow it became something i would die to uphold , " Never again" was all i read.
I didnt fight there , i didnt know anyone who did , but after i read the words i beleive them , dont make the same mistake that lead to that one. Dont let some fututre generation have to experience that.
I'm not jewish , i dont know anyone from Israel. Dont really pay much attention to them in life outside of what i see on the news so this isnt somethnig from personal history or beleif , just something we as humans need to NOT DO EVER AGAIN.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The issue is PRIMARILY a religious one, since marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. If God exists, then He owns us, NOT the state. therefore He entrusts us to the principle of self ownership 9as a legal concept) in His Holy name. Therefore, if we own ourselves legally, we may contract with one another as we see fit, so long as the contract involves people capable of contracting (minors are out, so are animals -- there is no slipery slope). Therefore, in that we are entitled to that and religious freedom, if MY faith tells me it is okay for gays to marry, or yes if it says it is okay for groups to form similar contracts, the state has no compelling interest to stop such contracting.
No rights are violated in the making of such bonds and contracts and therefore, I am for it.
No state ought to be able to prevent people from forming this Holy contract.
If the state recognizes a person's freedom to choose thier own sexual orientation than it has no choice but to grant people equality under the law.
What is recognized as married in law in one instance must be recognized as legal all instances despite sexual orientation.
Of course, the state does have the right to refuse to recognize that a person should be free to make their own choices in life but I can guarantee all of you that you will not like living under that state:
Whats someone beleives isnt the case here , its can a same sex husband /wife get same tax breaks , pass on debt inheritance etc, nothing else. Nothing about any chruch / pastor / priest etc doing anything other than what their church mandates.
This is exactly it. We have already gone through this in Spain, where gay marriage is now legal and accepted by everyone (except the fascists) and it's clearly nothing religious, like is not religious abortion or divorce. It's to assure that everyone has the same CIVIL rights.
Religious people can have their believes and act accordingly, but the civil society has to move on.
The main issue as I see it is a matter of civil rights more so than religious doctrine. If Jack marries John and for some reason later on Jack divorces John or Jack dies. John just wants to make sure he gets the same rights as if Jack had married Jill. Jill would be entitled to the alimony or life insurance benefits, etc and John wants to be sure he has those same rights. Gays are going to get married whether it's here in the US or overseas. The question is the legality of the marriage in the eyes of the US legal system. As far as I'm concerned, they should be treated with parity with traditional marriages. As far as religious doctrine goes, that's up to the individual religions if they want to recognize gay marriages or not and NOT be the only factor in the legal recognition of any marriage...gay or traditional
The problem I have always had with this gay marriage dribble that people have had is this. Most of them say that the bible say it's an abomination and that is why they appose it in the first place. But the fact is that Christanity says it's an abomination and not all bibles or religions oppose gay marriage. The US has the "Seperation of Church and State". If anyone lets any religious policy influence them into making specific laws then there is no longer seperation of church and state. On the policy of gay marriage the state really has no basis for gettin involved.
The only true reason any group or individual has given is invalid. "Protection of the sanctity of marriage"... WTH??? Are they saying that gay couples can not have a true marriage? Because I believe they can. Sanctity of a marriage is all about being true to each other. To love, honor, and cherish. I firmly believe gay couples can do this. And I have seen quite a few "normal" marriages that could not do this.
Even though I am not gay or bi-sexual, I fully support gays having the right to marry. Not because of any other reason other than it is just right. We must keep the seperation of church and state. We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them. And anyone who does this needs to be put out of office.
Eckobah
Quote of the day: "Make me president... first thing I will do is fire everyone in Washington" hahaha
In my opinion the govt needs to stop intruding on everyone's lives. Whats next? Will they regulate how much gas you can buy? What kind of movies you are allowed to watch? What kind of games your kids are allowed to play? Where you are allowed to travel? What type of car you are allowed to buy? They need to stop with this Nanny state stuff and stop assuming they know whats best for everyone. Everyone's situation and life is different.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Race and Marriage are two separate items. Marriage is based on religion which is shared by many races.
Once again, for every one of you that believe this - "which religion?"
Simple question. If marriage is religious, which religion?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Originally posted by Dekron It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
You do have documentation for this wild claim, correct? Because most of the times when I see those things legal, I find they are based on archaic definitions of marriage that flow 'from religion.'
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
In my opinion the govt needs to stop intruding on everyone's lives. Whats next? Will they regulate how much gas you can buy? What kind of movies you are allowed to watch? What kind of games your kids are allowed to play? Where you are allowed to travel? What type of car you are allowed to buy? They need to stop with this Nanny state stuff and stop assuming they know whats best for everyone. Everyone's situation and life is different.
How about what to do with your money? Does the government have the right to forcibly take someone's earnings and "spread the wealth around?"
How about health care? If you give health care over to government, you have given government effective ownership over your body.
How about education? If you give education over to government, you give government effective ownership over your mind.
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Here is a silly thought: How about you look at the nations that have already allowed gay marriage. To they people to marry children? Not really.
Why should the line be drawn before gay marriage? Does it hurt anyone? Not really. There are all arguments why we shouldn't allow people to marry children or marry an animal, but there is not a single valid argument against gay marriage. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than the religious people trying to enforce their religion onto other people.
Originally posted by Dekron It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
Originally posted by Gameloading Why should the line be drawn before gay marriage? Does it hurt anyone? Not really. There are all arguments why we shouldn't allow people to marry children or marry an animal, but there is not a single valid argument against gay marriage. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than the religious people trying to enforce their religion onto other people.
Again, look above. I am making no case against banning or legalizing gay marriage. I don't care either way. I simply asked a question of where a line should be drawn.Should we allow everyone to marry whomever, rather whatever, they want?
Originally posted by Dekron It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
I think that's more of an issue over who may enter into legal contracts and who may not. As long as children and animals are not allowed to contractm they can't enter into marriage. many countries in the middle east view children as the property of their parents, so that is how it occurs that you can have child marriages.
As far as I have seen none of them allow gay marriage either.
I still feel the question is self ownership. If you own yourself, and have sufficient sentience (animals and children do not) you may make what legal associations you like, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. I don't see how gay marriage or polygamy hurts those rights.
Originally posted by Dekron It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
Yes, they do. And why do they do that? THEY ARE OPERATING BASED ON THEIR RELIGION'S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
Religion defines marriage, according to you. The polygamists and pedophiles who can legally marry can do so because of religion. That's the 'religious definition of marriage.'
You want your religion. You want your traditional definition. There it is. Men marrying 12 year old girls. Men having multiple wives. It's traditional. It's religious.
All your arguments FOR your definition of marriage are arguments for their marriage too. I can equally post, by your very own slippary slope logic "Well if we limit marriage to tradition and religion, men will be able to marry 12 year olds or have 15 wives."
Also, you cite Norway. But marriage to a second wife or husband is ILLEGAL in Norway.
How do they then have a polygamy problem? Well it turns out, traditional religious marriage. They decided it was so valuable they should recognize it.
It's traditional. It's religious. It's not a redefinition of anything.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by Sharajat Religion defines marriage, according to you.
No, it does not. I am a Deist. I do not practice any form of religion. I am simply asking a question based upon sociological factors, not religious ones.
And again, this is not an attempt to support either side of the issue of gay marriage, it simply asks how to address the rest of the group's cries over "civil rights" violations.
As I have said previously, I think it is up to the people to decide, not the government.
"Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them."
Now you do see this "progression" correct? First Same-Sex Marriages, then Polygamy, then onto Underage marriages or adults with minors. In the western olden years this was acceptable, and is still acceptable in some cultures and religions. Who are you to say, that with the acceptance of Same-Sex Marriages and Polygamy, that such other marriages cannot be allowed? Because these people are not Adults? The age of adulthood has been redefined by our laws, and can be done, or exceptions to be made. The Drinking Age in some states were at 14, until the highway fundings had restrictions. The Age for Marriage can be defined in any state.
Just because it is only of "adults" will not mean that will be as such forever.
So who am I to tell others, to enforce my will onto others? I am an American with a belief and opinion. If there are a majority of us who agree to such principles, then it can become the law of the land. I have as much right as you or as well as other opposition. I consider it disrespectful for marriage to be redefined, just as you consider me disrespectful for denying it onto another group.
So who is legally right, or who is morally right? Impossible to say when both believe to be right.
"You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation."
Tell me, do you play empire building games? Those types of games in which you, as the acting leader seek to grow your nation, be it by military, economics, diplomacy and such? That may help out if you have not done so. One of the goals of a nation is to have its population grow and be happy. Such governmental items placed on marriage or unions are for incentives for the population to grow.
Now if you like, we can take away those benefits and incentives as you stated, and we can then become like Russia, with negative population growth. Ever occurred to you that some nations in our modern world are actually dying, fading out of history due to negative population trends, with war and hunger not being the causes?
Actually, you see the progression wrong. Polygamy used to be okay in America. It wasn't an issue that came on the federal governments or state governments radar, because it basically didn't matter to anyone. Then came along taxation and the invention of tax benefits for certain groups. Then suddenly it was something that needed to be banned when people began to realize how they could use the power of the government to manipulate other Americans.
So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible.
And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality. We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority. You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday.
And I don't give a damn about your empire building games. America is a strong nation in its promise of freedom alone. I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off. The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!
Whats someone beleives isnt the case here , its can a same sex husband /wife get same tax breaks , pass on debt inheritance etc, nothing else. Nothing about any chruch / pastor / priest etc doing anything other than what their church mandates.
This is exactly it. We have already gone through this in Spain, where gay marriage is now legal and accepted by everyone (except the fascists) and it's clearly nothing religious, like is not religious abortion or divorce. It's to assure that everyone has the same CIVIL rights.
Religious people can have their believes and act accordingly, but the civil society has to move on.
So, our land of the free has become a land of the church? And I'm sure even though gay people can get married and recognized in your country the gates of hell have not swallowed you up? We in America should look to you as an example of how stupid some people here are acting with their radical government intervention and bigotry. Bravo to Spain!
We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them.
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Where does using the government to define something end? I would rather see a polygamist camp outside my window than have the government using its guns to force people to live a certain way.
Why the fear of freedom and self-determination? Why does it appeal to you to try to force yourself on others lives?
Comments
i still dont see how ANY religion has anything at all to do with this.
Bigotry , ignorace , and just a big case of " I know whats better for you than you do" yes i see that here , but no reason at all for this to have even evolved into a religious debate.
none.
Whats someone beleives isnt the case here , its can a same sex husband /wife get same tax breaks , pass on debt inheritance etc, nothing else. Nothing about any chruch / pastor / priest etc doing anything other than what their church mandates.
trying to spin this into something religious is scary , because setting a precedent like this can do horrible things when the next target happens to be your religion.
Dont beleive me ? ask any jewish person what happens when you are the target of restrictive laws.
Sad to see so many people in the USA actively and with such strong enotion wanting to travel that road.
this is that one step that could lead to disaster , I've been to a place from a time in history, and i saw a gate that told me "works makes free" .. and a path lead me to a place i will never in my life set foot on again because it was evil , ugly, and made by men. I touched a monument there , and i read the words , and somehow it became something i would die to uphold , " Never again" was all i read.
I didnt fight there , i didnt know anyone who did , but after i read the words i beleive them , dont make the same mistake that lead to that one. Dont let some fututre generation have to experience that.
I'm not jewish , i dont know anyone from Israel. Dont really pay much attention to them in life outside of what i see on the news so this isnt somethnig from personal history or beleif , just something we as humans need to NOT DO EVER AGAIN.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The issue is PRIMARILY a religious one, since marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. If God exists, then He owns us, NOT the state. therefore He entrusts us to the principle of self ownership 9as a legal concept) in His Holy name. Therefore, if we own ourselves legally, we may contract with one another as we see fit, so long as the contract involves people capable of contracting (minors are out, so are animals -- there is no slipery slope). Therefore, in that we are entitled to that and religious freedom, if MY faith tells me it is okay for gays to marry, or yes if it says it is okay for groups to form similar contracts, the state has no compelling interest to stop such contracting.
No rights are violated in the making of such bonds and contracts and therefore, I am for it.
No state ought to be able to prevent people from forming this Holy contract.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Someone, I think it was Gorair, made an excellent point earlier.
It is the tyranny of the majority against a small minority of people who want to be let alone.
To love, freely, and forge legal relationships with a person's lifemate.
If the state recognizes a person's freedom to choose thier own sexual orientation than it has no choice but to grant people equality under the law.
What is recognized as married in law in one instance must be recognized as legal all instances despite sexual orientation.
Of course, the state does have the right to refuse to recognize that a person should be free to make their own choices in life but I can guarantee all of you that you will not like living under that state:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111500138.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-19-forced-marriage_x.htm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/08/israel.missionaries/index.html
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
This is exactly it. We have already gone through this in Spain, where gay marriage is now legal and accepted by everyone (except the fascists) and it's clearly nothing religious, like is not religious abortion or divorce. It's to assure that everyone has the same CIVIL rights.
Religious people can have their believes and act accordingly, but the civil society has to move on.
The main issue as I see it is a matter of civil rights more so than religious doctrine. If Jack marries John and for some reason later on Jack divorces John or Jack dies. John just wants to make sure he gets the same rights as if Jack had married Jill. Jill would be entitled to the alimony or life insurance benefits, etc and John wants to be sure he has those same rights. Gays are going to get married whether it's here in the US or overseas. The question is the legality of the marriage in the eyes of the US legal system. As far as I'm concerned, they should be treated with parity with traditional marriages. As far as religious doctrine goes, that's up to the individual religions if they want to recognize gay marriages or not and NOT be the only factor in the legal recognition of any marriage...gay or traditional
The problem I have always had with this gay marriage dribble that people have had is this. Most of them say that the bible say it's an abomination and that is why they appose it in the first place. But the fact is that Christanity says it's an abomination and not all bibles or religions oppose gay marriage. The US has the "Seperation of Church and State". If anyone lets any religious policy influence them into making specific laws then there is no longer seperation of church and state. On the policy of gay marriage the state really has no basis for gettin involved.
The only true reason any group or individual has given is invalid. "Protection of the sanctity of marriage"... WTH??? Are they saying that gay couples can not have a true marriage? Because I believe they can. Sanctity of a marriage is all about being true to each other. To love, honor, and cherish. I firmly believe gay couples can do this. And I have seen quite a few "normal" marriages that could not do this.
Even though I am not gay or bi-sexual, I fully support gays having the right to marry. Not because of any other reason other than it is just right. We must keep the seperation of church and state. We must give rights to those who have them. Those who pass laws forbidding gay marriage are just letting the religious set policy for them. And anyone who does this needs to be put out of office.
Eckobah
Quote of the day: "Make me president... first thing I will do is fire everyone in Washington" hahaha
In my opinion the govt needs to stop intruding on everyone's lives. Whats next? Will they regulate how much gas you can buy? What kind of movies you are allowed to watch? What kind of games your kids are allowed to play? Where you are allowed to travel? What type of car you are allowed to buy? They need to stop with this Nanny state stuff and stop assuming they know whats best for everyone. Everyone's situation and life is different.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Once again, for every one of you that believe this - "which religion?"
Simple question. If marriage is religious, which religion?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Here:
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Here:
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
It's not a fallacy when it has already happened in other parts of the world. That doesn't apply to this argument. Nice try.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
You do have documentation for this wild claim, correct? Because most of the times when I see those things legal, I find they are based on archaic definitions of marriage that flow 'from religion.'
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
How about what to do with your money? Does the government have the right to forcibly take someone's earnings and "spread the wealth around?"
How about health care? If you give health care over to government, you have given government effective ownership over your body.
How about education? If you give education over to government, you give government effective ownership over your mind.
fishermage.blogspot.com
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Here is a silly thought: How about you look at the nations that have already allowed gay marriage. To they people to marry children? Not really.
Why should the line be drawn before gay marriage? Does it hurt anyone? Not really. There are all arguments why we shouldn't allow people to marry children or marry an animal, but there is not a single valid argument against gay marriage. Make no mistake, this is nothing more than the religious people trying to enforce their religion onto other people.
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
Again, look above. I am making no case against banning or legalizing gay marriage. I don't care either way. I simply asked a question of where a line should be drawn.Should we allow everyone to marry whomever, rather whatever, they want?
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
I think that's more of an issue over who may enter into legal contracts and who may not. As long as children and animals are not allowed to contractm they can't enter into marriage. many countries in the middle east view children as the property of their parents, so that is how it occurs that you can have child marriages.
As far as I have seen none of them allow gay marriage either.
I still feel the question is self ownership. If you own yourself, and have sufficient sentience (animals and children do not) you may make what legal associations you like, as long as you do not violate the rights of others. I don't see how gay marriage or polygamy hurts those rights.
fishermage.blogspot.com
So polygamy, zoophilia and pedophilia have been swept up into marriage in other parts of the world? Following from legalizing gay marriage?
Not from legalizing gay marriage, but that are allowable. Norway has, however, legalized polygamy after they legalized gay marriage. Polygamy is allowable in numerous countries, it is allowable to marry an animal in India and Sudan, for example, and many countries in the Middle East allow pedophilia.
Yes, they do. And why do they do that? THEY ARE OPERATING BASED ON THEIR RELIGION'S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
Religion defines marriage, according to you. The polygamists and pedophiles who can legally marry can do so because of religion. That's the 'religious definition of marriage.'
You want your religion. You want your traditional definition. There it is. Men marrying 12 year old girls. Men having multiple wives. It's traditional. It's religious.
All your arguments FOR your definition of marriage are arguments for their marriage too. I can equally post, by your very own slippary slope logic "Well if we limit marriage to tradition and religion, men will be able to marry 12 year olds or have 15 wives."
Also, you cite Norway. But marriage to a second wife or husband is ILLEGAL in Norway.
How do they then have a polygamy problem? Well it turns out, traditional religious marriage. They decided it was so valuable they should recognize it.
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081404.html
It's traditional. It's religious. It's not a redefinition of anything.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
No, it does not. I am a Deist. I do not practice any form of religion. I am simply asking a question based upon sociological factors, not religious ones.
And again, this is not an attempt to support either side of the issue of gay marriage, it simply asks how to address the rest of the group's cries over "civil rights" violations.
As I have said previously, I think it is up to the people to decide, not the government.
I concede on that point. My source was obviously incorrect. I was wrong.
"Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them."
Now you do see this "progression" correct? First Same-Sex Marriages, then Polygamy, then onto Underage marriages or adults with minors. In the western olden years this was acceptable, and is still acceptable in some cultures and religions. Who are you to say, that with the acceptance of Same-Sex Marriages and Polygamy, that such other marriages cannot be allowed? Because these people are not Adults? The age of adulthood has been redefined by our laws, and can be done, or exceptions to be made. The Drinking Age in some states were at 14, until the highway fundings had restrictions. The Age for Marriage can be defined in any state.
Just because it is only of "adults" will not mean that will be as such forever.
So who am I to tell others, to enforce my will onto others? I am an American with a belief and opinion. If there are a majority of us who agree to such principles, then it can become the law of the land. I have as much right as you or as well as other opposition. I consider it disrespectful for marriage to be redefined, just as you consider me disrespectful for denying it onto another group.
So who is legally right, or who is morally right? Impossible to say when both believe to be right.
"You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation."
Tell me, do you play empire building games? Those types of games in which you, as the acting leader seek to grow your nation, be it by military, economics, diplomacy and such? That may help out if you have not done so. One of the goals of a nation is to have its population grow and be happy. Such governmental items placed on marriage or unions are for incentives for the population to grow.
Now if you like, we can take away those benefits and incentives as you stated, and we can then become like Russia, with negative population growth. Ever occurred to you that some nations in our modern world are actually dying, fading out of history due to negative population trends, with war and hunger not being the causes?
Actually, you see the progression wrong. Polygamy used to be okay in America. It wasn't an issue that came on the federal governments or state governments radar, because it basically didn't matter to anyone. Then came along taxation and the invention of tax benefits for certain groups. Then suddenly it was something that needed to be banned when people began to realize how they could use the power of the government to manipulate other Americans.
So, the truth of the matter is, polygamy was okay first. Just like it was in the Bible.
And you can talk about the "majority matters" b.s. all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you lived in a democracy you'd hate it. So I would watch what you're saying about our representative republic. We are not a democracy that runs on mob rules mentality. We are a nation that promises equal justice and rights to ALL, regardles of whether you are a minority or majority. You would be wise to respect that protection or it might rear its ugly head against you someday.
And I don't give a damn about your empire building games. America is a strong nation in its promise of freedom alone. I could give a shit about the economy or whatever is going on, but when someone starts f*cking with the founding documents of this country I get a little pissed off. The same way I get pissed off when I see someone messing with the rights and freedoms of another American, whether I agree with them or not, I still feel they have the right to live free from an oppressive government and self-rightous majority!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
Then quit voting Republican and choose some real Conservatives. The one that want to get government out of our lives. That includes our private lives.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
This is exactly it. We have already gone through this in Spain, where gay marriage is now legal and accepted by everyone (except the fascists) and it's clearly nothing religious, like is not religious abortion or divorce. It's to assure that everyone has the same CIVIL rights.
Religious people can have their believes and act accordingly, but the civil society has to move on.
So, our land of the free has become a land of the church? And I'm sure even though gay people can get married and recognized in your country the gates of hell have not swallowed you up? We in America should look to you as an example of how stupid some people here are acting with their radical government intervention and bigotry. Bravo to Spain!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
As I have said previously, I am neither against, nor for gay marriage. I do not care either way. But, is there not a line to be drawn somewhere? Someone already posted that once marriage is "redefined" it will be done so again and again for every group who wants to push the bounds. Mormons will push for polygamy. Muslims will push for marrying children. Zoophiliacs will want to marry an animal.
Where does it end?
Where does using the government to define something end? I would rather see a polygamist camp outside my window than have the government using its guns to force people to live a certain way.
Why the fear of freedom and self-determination? Why does it appeal to you to try to force yourself on others lives?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed