|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Quote:
Like Erickson, The New York Times' Ross Douthat worries religious objections to gay marriage will come to look like 1960s-style Southern bigotry, unless gay-rights advocates have it in their heart to show some mercy:
This is the heart of the issue. What I don't understand is why Christianity is rigid in keeping tradition. When did the revelations of God, Christ, and The Holy Spirit suddenly stop? There comes the whole issue of cherry picking, too.
Quote:
Everything's cool, and then all of a sudden, gay people want to be treated like everyone else.
Uhm Rush.....they are people just like everyone else. They just happen to be born with a different sexual orientation than the one you were born with. At their heart they are the same as you, me, and everyone else. I believe this grants them the same protections, rights, and basic liberties as other Americans.
I wonder about the whole "if you're gay you're damned to hell" mode of thinking. Why would a Creator create an individual which is damned to suffer from conception. Much scientific evidence is being released which shows sexual orientation is not a choice but an innate unchangeable part of body chemistry. We weren't put on this earth to loathe ourselves, hate who we fundamentally are, or suppress the unique gifts each of us possess. God wouldn't want anyone to hate themselves. This means none of us should hate those who are born attracted to the same sex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Can you really not see a difference between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one? Or are you just playing the fool?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,450 |
Quote:
Right. And there will be plenty of churches that elect to marry us. In case this is news to some people around here, gay people can be "Christians", too. There are even "gay" churches! 
I hope for the day when there isn't a need to discuss this subject.. I just don't think what others do with regard to marriage, is any of my business..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
But if all people involved agree and accept .... and in fact, desire such a legal arrangement, then why should the government be able to tell them who they can, or cannot love and marry?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Can you really not see a difference between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one? Or are you just playing the fool?
Geeze ... and people were saying the same thing about hetero and gay marriages for years. They were just called bigots. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Quote:
Can you really not see a difference between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one? Or are you just playing the fool?
Can a polygamous relationship be a committed one? Does polygamy mean that someone is playing the field, or does it mean that 3 people enter into a relationship in which they love and accept one another, and want to spend their lives together? Why should government tell them who they can and cannot love? Why can't the government just stay out of their bedrooms?
Seriously. The arguments work for polygamy just as easily.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can you really not see a difference between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one? Or are you just playing the fool?
Geeze ... and people were saying the same thing about hetero and gay marriages for years. They were just called bigots.
So you weren't just playing the fool...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
I guess I need to use smaller words so you can understand.  You can take every single argument for gay marriage and it applies directly to an argument for polygamy. The only obvious difference is the "semantics" of what constitutes a marriage ... which as we've already seen, doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
But if all people involved agree and accept .... and in fact, desire such a legal arrangement, then why should the government be able to tell them who they can, or cannot love and marry?
I can't believe you're actually trotting out this argument. 
It's not an equal rights issue, because no one has the rights that you're referring to.
One scenario is asking to grant access to benefits and legal standing that other people have. The other scenario is asking for benefits and legal standing that no one has.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Can a polygamous relationship be a committed one? Does polygamy mean that someone is playing the field, or does it mean that 3 people enter into a relationship in which they love and accept one another, and want to spend their lives together? Why should government tell them who they can and cannot love? Why can't the government just stay out of their bedrooms?
Seriously. The arguments work for polygamy just as easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
I can't believe you're actually trotting out this argument.
Hey, welcome to our shoes, from the last decade ... enjoy your stay.
Quote:
It's not an equal rights issue, because no one has the rights that you're referring to.
One scenario is asking to grant access to benefits and legal standing that other people have. The other scenario is asking for benefits and legal standing that no one has.
They are asking for the all the same legal rights that all other married people have ... just to multiple partners. And just to clarify no-one had the right to legal marry another person of the same sex before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,704 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not sure what your point there is, and where did I say anything about my standards on that? 
If anything, that just further proves my point that the government will and can force it's moral beliefs onto a religious institution whenever it decides it wants to.
IMO, Utah should immediately legalize polygamy and then use all the exact same arguments that have been used for gay marriage to legitimize it.
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
But do you believe that being part of a religion should grant you a free pass from laws?
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
If my workplace offers health insurance for a family and I marry 10 people, are all 10 of them entitled to my healthcare benefits?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not sure what your point there is, and where did I say anything about my standards on that?
If anything, that just further proves my point that the government will and can force it's moral beliefs onto a religious institution whenever it decides it wants to.
IMO, Utah should immediately legalize polygamy and then use all the exact same arguments that have been used for gay marriage to legitimize it.
The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not the same.
But do you believe that being part of a religion should grant you a free pass from laws?
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
If my workplace offers health insurance for a family and I marry 10 people, are all 10 of them entitled to my healthcare benefits?
I don't know. Do they charge different rates if you have 1 child, or 10? Every employer sponsored health insurance plan I have had used a single rate, and a family rate. (no matter how many children) I would assume it would be a similar case if a man (or woman) had multiple spouses.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Are you being purposefully obtuse? Quote:
They are asking for the all the same legal rights that all other married people have ... just to multiple partners.
No, they are not.
Married people do not have the legal right to take on another spouse.
Quote:
And just to clarify no-one had the right to legal marry another person of the same sex before.
The majority of the population has the right to marry another person.
The scenario where gays want to get married are asking for the same rights afforded to other Americans under the system of established laws and benefits.
The scenario where polygamists want to marry multiple people is asking for rights that no other American has, and essentially asks to entirely upend the system of established laws and benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
But if all people involved agree and accept .... and in fact, desire such a legal arrangement, then why should the government be able to tell them who they can, or cannot love and marry?
I can't believe you're actually trotting out this argument.
It's not an equal rights issue, because no one has the rights that you're referring to.
One scenario is asking to grant access to benefits and legal standing that other people have. The other scenario is asking for benefits and legal standing that no one has.
2 people of the same gender also did not have the right to marry one another what ...... a decade or 2 ago?. Is that really the argument you want to trot out?
Plus, there actually is historical precedence for polygamy, from Biblical times forward.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
2 people of the same gender also did not have the right to marry one another what ...... a decade or 2 ago?. Is that really the argument you want to trot out?
Yes, it is.
Do I really need to explain what 'equal rights' means?
No, gays did not have the right to get married two decades ago. But heterosexuals did have that right. Therefore, granting them the right to get married would be extending an equal right.
Your scenario asks for a right that no other American has.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I don't see a difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Can you expound upon what differences you see?
One involves two people.
The other involves three or more people.
But if all people involved agree and accept .... and in fact, desire such a legal arrangement, then why should the government be able to tell them who they can, or cannot love and marry?
I can't believe you're actually trotting out this argument.
It's not an equal rights issue, because no one has the rights that you're referring to.
One scenario is asking to grant access to benefits and legal standing that other people have. The other scenario is asking for benefits and legal standing that no one has.
2 people of the same gender also did not have the right to marry one another what ...... a decade or 2 ago?. Is that really the argument you want to trot out?
Plus, there actually is historical precedence for polygamy, from Biblical times forward.
But homosexuality didn't have precedence? Homosexuality in culture predates the Bible, breh breh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Technically, every single person in the US has the right to live with anyone they choose, or to marry a member of the opposite sex. It is a case that gay people do not want to do so, because that's not who they are. It's not an equal protection case, in my opinion. This is why it is not been a Constitutional matter. All people have the same right, even if that right does not match up with their desire and/or makeup. The Constitution does not necessarily allow for everyone to do anything that makes them happy.
I also believe that civil unions could have settled this matter long ago, but many gay activists wanted to co-opt the word "marriage" for the (religious and moral) legitimacy the word carries with it. No one can deny that there is a religious aspect to the word marriage, unless it is a "civil" marriage. (One performed for legal purposes only) I bet that many people who go the civil marriage route, without the desire for the religious component, would be happy to call their union something other than marriage so they don't have the potential religious undertones.
Frankly I do not see why a union between something other than the traditional man and woman should be called marriage. It is not a marriage. It is changing the definition of the word to become something that it has never, ever, meant before. I accept and support the right of gay couples to enter into a legal arrangement identical to marriage, only without the religious connotations that accompany the word.
As far as polygamy, it actually has been legal in the US in the past. Many Native American Tribes have practiced polygamy. It only became illegal in the mid 19th century. (Though Native Tribes may still be allowed to make their own laws concerning marriage. I am not 100% sure on that)
This country has a history of legal polygamy. Polygamy is accepted and practiced in many countries around the world, especially in the Muslim world. It could be an equal protection case if a Muslim, (as an example) with several wives, as part of his religious expression, became a US citizen, and wanted to bring all of his wives with him as his legal spouses. That could well be a religious freedom argument.
You don;t want to accept or admit that there is a case to be made for polygamy, and maybe even a greater case than for gay marriage, but there is. Historic precedent and current religious practices could easily make it an equal protection and religious freedom argument.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
My understanding is that you can;t force a religious institution to marry people as now you really are mucking with a seperation of Church and State. I assume that's the way it would play out down there as well.
One would hope.. but I'm not so sure. Jules mentioned the radicals on all sides of an argument, which I agree with. I believe that the radicals on the homosexual side of this issue will not stop until they have left no stone unturned...
Right now there is a cake bakery being sued because they refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding because of their own moral beliefs... the ACLU has entered on the side of the gay couple fighting a business which just wants to live its own beliefs.. it's not the only bakery in the town, it might not even be the best bakery in the town, and this couple can be free to get married and live however they want for all I care but should the be able to force a bakery to make them a cake for a celebration? How many steps behind that is suing and/or forcing a church to marry them? I'd say not many.
See what will happen is this, there will be any number of these high profile lawsuits and eventually one will involve a church and then other churches will capitulate and just do the marriages because they don't have the money required to fight it.... oh and while they fight it, they will also be called homophobic bigots and all sorts of other names....
So I hope those who ASSUME that churches will never be forced to perform gay marriages remember their stance when this becomes an issue... because it will.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Technically, every single person in the US has the right to live with anyone they choose, or to marry a member of the opposite sex. It is a case that gay people do not want to do so, because that's not who they are. It's not an equal protection case, in my opinion. This is why it is not been a Constitutional matter. All people have the same right, even if that right does not match up with their desire and/or makeup. The Constitution does not necessarily allow for everyone to do anything that makes them happy.
You either don't fully understand what 'equal rights' means, or you're being willfully obtuse.
Quote:
No one can deny that there is a religious aspect to the word marriage, unless it is a "civil" marriage. (One performed for legal purposes only)
As far as a legal definition, there is no religious aspect to the word marriage. Why would you say that no one can deny that?
What we are dealing with is the legal definition of marriage. Religion has no place in the discussion at all.
Quote:
I also believe that civil unions could have settled this matter long ago, but many gay activists wanted to co-opt the word "marriage" for the (religious and moral) legitimacy the word carries with it.
No, they wanted equal rights.
Again, I would suggest looking up what it means. Once you do that, look up 'separate but equal' and see what the rulings on that are.
Quote:
You don;t want to accept or admit that there is a case to be made for polygamy, and maybe even a greater case than for gay marriage, but there is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
So I hope those who ASSUME that churches will never be forced to perform gay marriages remember their stance when this becomes an issue... because it will.
No, it won't.
It'll become an issue after it becomes an issue that those churches can refuse to marry those that haven't been baptised and non-believers.
If my girlfriend and I decided to get married today, no Catholic church would do the wedding - and that is their Right.
Don't get me wrong.... I'm sure some idiots will test it (let's face it, humans are stupid), but they'll get shot down.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I also believe that civil unions could have settled this matter long ago, but many gay activists wanted to co-opt the word "marriage" for the (religious and moral) legitimacy the word carries with it.
You trot out this ridiculous notion every time the topic of gay marriage comes up on this forum, and every time it has to be explained to you that it isn't some quest for "religous and moral legitimacy" that same-sex couples are seeking, but that they wish to avail themselves of the myriad state and federal rights that apply only to those who are, by LEGAL definition, married. Not joined in civil union. Married.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
And if civil unions were made legally equal to marriage, then there would be no issue on that front. If there were a will for such a law to be passed, then it could be implemented without issue.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Yeah, that's my intention. Thanks for putting it so clearly. I do not believe in changing the meaning of the word marriage so that it becomes something that it has never been before. I do believe in an equal legal agreement that will, in no way, be confused with traditional marriage ...... because it is not traditional marriage, it is something entirely new and different. It also has religious implications that concern me greatly. I know that doesn't matter to you at all, but it does matter to me.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
It has no religious implications, whatsoever.
No law made will alter any religion... so what implications could there possibly be?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,648
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,648 |
J/c Perhaps the definition of the word marriage is appropriate here. I don't consider myself to be "civil unioned" just because I didn't get married in a Church. I am married! We have a Marriage License, not a civil union license mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA noun 1. a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present. Dictionary.com
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
Once more, a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is in no way consistent with the traditional, legal, and or religious definition of the word. You have to change the meaning of the word entirely and completely in order to make it apply to a gay couple. There is no marriage between a gay couple ... or at least there wasn't until courts in certain states changed the meaning of the word to make it something completely and totally different than what it has ever been before.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I do believe in an equal legal agreement that will, in no way, be confused with traditional marriage ...... because it is not traditional marriage, it is something entirely new and different.
So something separate but equal?
Quote:
It also has religious implications that concern me greatly. I know that doesn't matter to you at all, but it does matter to me.
You are free to your religious beliefs, but they don't really hold water in a legal matter in which your religious freedoms aren't being infringed upon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
What's exactly wrong with words changing meaning?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Once more, a union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is in no way consistent with the traditional, legal, and or religious definition of the word.
How many times does someone have to point out to you that religion does not matter in this discussion?
And for that matter, neither does what's traditional. By that argument, allowing interracial marriage was wrong because it violated traditional marriage.
Quote:
You have to change the meaning of the word entirely and completely in order to make it apply to a gay couple.
No, actually, you don't.
If you go through all of the legal benefits, privileges, rights, responsibilities, etc., you don't really need to change much to include gay marriage. At worst, a word change or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,810 |
*Sigh*
You have to completely and totally change the meaning of the word marriage in order for "gay marriage" to exist. You have to completely ignore legal precedent, and the religious implications of the word marriage in order to create "gay marriage".
I am not comfortable with completely changing the meaning of such a traditionally important institution, especially when that institution has lost so much of its meaning anyway, which has already cost our society greatly.
Marriage, as an institution, is on trouble anyway, and traditional 2 parent families are also on the wane. The solution is not to weaken the institution of marriage, but rather to return it to what it once meant.
Of course, this country is now full of "temporary permanence", so this will be just one more nail in the coffin of one more traditional institution.
I am so thankful that I don't have kids, because I worry greatly about where this country will be in 50 or 60 years from now. Morals? That's such an old fashioned concept. Religion? Who needs that?
*Sigh*
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
You have to completely and totally change the meaning of the word marriage in order for "gay marriage" to exist.
Agreed.
"Two people entering into a legally binding, life-long commitment to each other of mutual love and respect".
That has TOTALLY gotta change. Completely. Doesn't even come close to applying any longer.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,337 |
Quote:
Morals? That's such an old fashioned concept.
I guess this one is purely a matter of perspective. Your side seems to think it is being moral by objecting to this, while everyone else sees it as moral to allow it.
Funny.
Quote:
Religion? Who needs that?
*Sigh*
Riiiiight.
As long as it is YOUR religion and things are interpreted and put into law according to that religion's view... right?
Feel free to have religion all you want... just do NOT feel free to force any part of it on anyone else.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
*Sigh*
You have to completely and totally change the meaning of the word marriage in order for "gay marriage" to exist. You have to completely ignore legal precedent, and the religious implications of the word marriage in order to create "gay marriage".
I am not comfortable with completely changing the meaning of such a traditionally important institution, especially when that institution has lost so much of its meaning anyway, which has already cost our society greatly.
Marriage, as an institution, is on trouble anyway, and traditional 2 parent families are also on the wane. The solution is not to weaken the institution of marriage, but rather to return it to what it once meant.
Of course, this country is now full of "temporary permanence", so this will be just one more nail in the coffin of one more traditional institution.
I am so thankful that I don't have kids, because I worry greatly about where this country will be in 50 or 60 years from now. Morals? That's such an old fashioned concept. Religion? Who needs that?
*Sigh*
We need to go back to when marriage was pure! Heck the thought of arranging my future daughter or son's marriage for a political maneuver.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You have to completely ignore legal precedent, and the religious implications of the word marriage in order to create "gay marriage".
You can bring up religious implications as much as you want, but that won't make them matter.
Quote:
The solution is not to weaken the institution of marriage, but rather to return it to what it once meant.
How, exactly, does allowing gays to get married weaken the institution?
Quote:
Religion? Who needs that?
Where are you losing religious freedoms in this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
This has all been hashed out recently in THIS thread. Nothing was solved then, and nothing will be solved now. I'm not sure why some people claim ownership to words. As I stated in that thread, the word marriage and it's meaning will NOT change for anyone. It will still mean what each of us wants and needs it to. And, YTown....really? Allowing me to get married will somehow degrade the institution? Think for a minute what would change in my life....not much except we can expect certain legal rights that married couples have received forever. Gee, that will just be terrible for the rest of you. ::shudder::
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
YTown, I strongly urge you to read the transcript of the arguments provided earlier and pay special attention to Mr. Cooper and the Justices comments. I understand your faith, but if you persist in using religious grounds, in any way, as your basis for opposition you will lose and cannot win.
It is clear that very few have done this, you all should as most of you are very, very wrong.
This case was NOT about "rights and privileges". That was specifically addressed by the Chief Justice, "This is NOT about rights and privileges, it's Just about the label, right? It's just the label." The answer was yes, although in this context, it had to be.
California will have gay marriage BECAUSE California had civil union with all the rights of marriage, AND Because California also had gay adoption. They created a class, denied them a label, and stipulated that they were "similarly situated".
The Court stated that Marriage has many "legitimate purposes", one was singled out as the ONLY one the State had an interest in, which was the fostering of long-term, stable family units for the pro-creation and/or rearing of children. This is not to say that any other "legitimate purposes" of marriage were not as or even more important, just that the State had no interest in these areas.
Older and childless couples were specifically addressed, they were "similarly situated" and served as an example of the family unit.
Polygamy was specifically addressed, more detail was given but essentially it lead to less stable family units, and thus the State had an interest in banning it.
Gay couples are not "similarly situated" as they cannot procreate. Whether or not they could provide a stable family unit for rearing children was not answered, but it was certainly questioned. Experimenting with this vital societal task was not to be taken lightly. It was a very key component of the case that the state of California had stipulated to their status by allowing gay adoption.
The blueprint is abundantly clear. Any state which allows gay civil unions with the same rights as marriage, and also allows gay adoption, will and must have gay marriage, that is what the SCOTUS decided on Constitutional grounds.
No civil union and no gay adoption means no gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802 |
It's just kind of entertaining to see the ears plugged, "La la la la la" manuever on repeat against a sound argument. Glad this and abortion take up so much of our discourse and we're not worried about petty stuff. 
Politicians are puppets, y'all. Let's get Geppetto!
Formerly 4yikes2yoshi0
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,233 |
Quote:
Glad this and abortion take up so much of our discourse and we're not worried about petty stuff.
The politicians wouldn't have it any other way.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Victory For Gay Marriage
|
|
