Gay Marriage

[Father Heathen]

Gays are no more or less special than any other human. It's called "equality". Also, only a gibbering moron would try to compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. The huge and obvious difference is that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas bestiality and pedophilia victimize animals and children, who are incapable of rational, informed, uncoerced consent.

 

[Draka]

Please, make it stop, aren't there already mounds of threads like this right now? Do we really need anymore threads to keep presenting the same things on over and over?

 

[Revoltingest]

Gays are no more or less special than any other human. It's called "equality". Also, only a gibbering moron would try to compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. The huge and obvious difference is that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas bestiality and pedophilia victimize animals and children, who are incapable of rational, informed, uncoerced consent.

Except for sheep.
Their come hither looks signal intent.

 

[jubilee131]

I do consider marriage to be a man-made institution. Even if God advises a type of relationship, the way that different cultures view and conduct marriage varies.

In your example regarding pedophiles, you use consent as the main factor. But do you really believe a small child is mature enough to make a proper decision regarding marriage? And is the small child mature enough to handle sex both emotionally, psychologically and physically? I think this is abuse and I hope you agree and can see how this is a much more serious scenario than gay marriage.

There's no reason why you can't fight for your right to have more than one spouse. Just like there is no reason you can't fight for your right to marry the same sex. Power to you if you make a difference. This is how cultures change.

I hope you can see that this topic is not black and white, and so a rule does not have to be equal for everyone. You can see this through the example of the pedophile vs gay marriage.

"In your example regarding pedophiles, you use consent as the main factor. But do you really believe a small child is mature enough to make a proper decision regarding marriage? And is the small child mature enough to handle sex both emotionally, psychologically and physically? I think this is abuse and I hope you agree and can see how this is a much more serious scenario than gay marriage."

It doesn't matter what I think. The answer to all of your questions can and should be made by the parents. Who else would know the child better? If the parents are OK with it then who am I to say otherwise?

The bible talks about marriage and those writings are at least 7,000 years old. That goes back pretty far.

You are correct that I or anyone else can fight to change marriage restrictions, but you seem to be missing my point. If marriage is a "right" as those who support same sex marriage claim, then why not fight for everyone not just your group? I get the feeling they are being disingenuous.

 

[Storm]

If marriage is a "right" as those who support same sex marriage claim, then why not fight for everyone not just your group? I get the feeling they are being disingenuous.

Legally speaking, marriage is a binding contract which confers rights. The thing is, the people wanting to limit that contract's availability are the ones who need to justify their position. In a free society, we have rights by default.

 

[Father Heathen]

It doesn't matter what I think. The answer to all of your questions can and should be made by the parents. Who else would know the child better? If the parents are OK with it then who am I to say otherwise?

Incorrect. Abuse and exploitation isn't made acceptable by a parents "OK". That would make them unfit parents from which their children should be removed.

The bible talks about marriage and those writings are at least 7,000 years old. That goes back pretty far.

The bible also gives instructions on how one should sell their own daughter into an arranged marriage against their will, which amounts to nothing more than sexual slavery. So far as ethics and morality goes, the bible is irrelevant.

I get the feeling they are being disingenuous.

I get the same feeling about your posts.

 

[jubilee131]

"Of course marriage is a man made institution.

You are arguing two separate things. One is that of gay marriage under a religious definition of marriage, which already takes place no matter the laws of the State, and that of recognition of that marriage and applying the ridiculous number of State and federal laws regarding marriage. The latter is not what is happening.

But as far as the sanctity of marriage, sacredness of marriage or however it is worded there are religious institutions which already marry homosexuals. They are married. As married as any couple in a Catholic ceremony, LDS ceremony, etc.

We just need the State to recognize those marriages not just because of the argument that it is morally right to do so but as well it is practically beneficial for the State to do so. Homosexuals can raise children as well as heterosexuals. They can be a family unit as much as a heterosexual one. They already are, actually. But the official State recognition to protect them and provide them with the same benefits would be better for our society.

The only people who have anything to gain by not accepting this are those who need some sort of sick peace of mind that their religious culture dominates the legal system. That, historically, has never been good for a society."

I believe marriage was instituted by religion and taken over by government.

I am not arguing either side of the issue. I question how one can justify saying that marriage is a right and we need to allow same sex marriage, and at the same time tell people they can only have one spouse or restrict marriage for other groups. Either society can regulate marriage or they can't. Which is it? You spoke of doing what is right. If it is right for same sex marriage then it must be right for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and incest. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Storm]

I believe marriage was instituted by religion and taken over by government.

Which religion?

I am not arguing either side of the issue. I question how one can justify saying that marriage is a right and we need to allow same sex marriage, and at the same time tell people they can only have one spouse or restrict marriage for other groups. Either society can regulate marriage or they can't. Which is it? You spoke of doing what is right. If it is right for same sex marriage then it must be right for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and incest. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Again, it's a binding contract. Animals and minors cannot enter into it for that reason.

Polygamy is the next battle, methinks. Incest has logically valid reasons behind prohibition.

 

[jubilee131]

Gays are no more or less special than any other human. It's called "equality". Also, only a gibbering moron would try to compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. The huge and obvious difference is that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas bestiality and pedophilia victimize animals and children, who are incapable of rational, informed, uncoerced consent.

The difference is not as you describe. You must have skipped the original post. Age of consent laws vary between the states which makes them arbitrary and didn't even exist pre 1900's. Parents of children and owners of animals can enter into contracts. Does the name Lassie mean anything to you? You are regurgitating back the standard drivel for those trying to convince the idiots that do not think.

 

[jubilee131]

Please, make it stop, aren't there already mounds of threads like this right now? Do we really need anymore threads to keep presenting the same things on over and over?

Just do not participate! It isn't rocket science.

 

[Storm]

Just do not participate! It isn't rocket science.

Just read before you post! It isn't rocket science!


Seriously, that was uncalled for.

 

[gnomon]

I believe marriage was instituted by religion and taken over by government.

I am not arguing either side of the issue. I question how one can justify saying that marriage is a right and we need to allow same sex marriage, and at the same time tell people they can only have one spouse or restrict marriage for other groups. Either society can regulate marriage or they can't. Which is it? You spoke of doing what is right. If it is right for same sex marriage then it must be right for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and incest. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Which religion instituted marriage?

The statement "if it is right for same sex marriage then it must be right for polygamy,..." doesn't make sense. I could just change it to: If it is right for heterosexuals to get married than it must be right for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and incest. What's the difference? If you are trying for the argument of the definition of what is natural you won't get far. If you are trying for the argument of the definition of what is traditional that won't work either.

The basis of the right of marriage is that two consenting adults have the right to willingly enter into a legally binding contract. That's what marriage is in this nation. Doesn't matter what any religion says it is. Especially considering that small religious group that recently opposed interracial coupling.

 

[jubilee131]

Legally speaking, marriage is a binding contract which confers rights. The thing is, the people wanting to limit that contract's availability are the ones who need to justify their position. In a free society, we have rights by default.

Which any gay person can participate in, in any state in the union today. The question I am bringing up is, is marriage a right or can society regulate it? If society can exclude any one group then they can exclude any group they wish, the current state of affairs.

 

[Storm]

Which any gay person can participate in, in any state in the union today. The question I am bringing up is, is marriage a right or can society regulate it? If society can exclude any one group then they can exclude any group they wish, the current state of affairs.

Contracts take place between TWO parties. Gay couples are currently prohibited in most states of the union, and the federal level, which is unjustified and unjustifiable.

 

[gnomon]

Which any gay person can participate in, in any state in the union today. The question I am bringing up is, is marriage a right or can society regulate it? If society can exclude any one group then they can exclude any group they wish, the current state of affairs.

Of course society can regulate it. That's not the issue.

 

[Father Heathen]

The difference is not as you describe. You must have skipped the original post. Age of consent laws vary between the states which makes them arbitrary and didn't even exist pre 1900's. Parents of children and owners of animals can enter into contracts. Does the name Lassie mean anything to you? You are regurgitating back the standard drivel for those trying to convince the idiots that do not think.

A child isn't physiologically or psychologically developed enough to handle sex or marriage regardless of their parents say. Also, what do age of consent laws have to do with prepubescent children? And it should be obvious to anyone with a sense of decency that a parent allowing for their child to be exploited and abused would not make it acceptable. It's a ridiculous argument.

Again, bestiality and pedophilia victimizes, homoseuxality does not. End of story.

 

[Enlighten]

Which any gay person can participate in, in any state in the union today. The question I am bringing up is, is marriage a right or can society regulate it? If society can exclude any one group then they can exclude any group they wish, the current state of affairs.

Society in my opinion can regulate, however I say this to prevent such things you mention earlier like paedophilia etc. A marriage is a contract between two consenting adults and should be allowed no matter the sexual orientation. Common sense should prevail in the end and realise that homosexuality is not a "life choice" but that it is natural and if two men/women want to marry then they should, they are consenting adults after all.

 

[jubilee131]

Which religion?


Again, it's a binding contract. Animals and minors cannot enter into it for that reason.

Polygamy is the next battle, methinks. Incest has logically valid reasons behind prohibition.

Parents can enter into contracts for and in behalf of minor children. Ever hear of Miley Cyrus, Sherley Temple, Britney Spears etc. Animal owners can enter into contracts for their animals. Ever hear of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Mr. Ed, chetta, Seabiscutt and Flipper? They all had contracts. Imagine that an animal under contract!

 

[Storm]

Parents can enter into contracts for and in behalf of minor children. Ever hear of Miley Cyrus, Sherley Temple, Britney Spears etc. Animal owners can enter into contracts for their animals. Ever hear of Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Mr. Ed, chetta, Seabiscutt and Flipper? They all had contracts. Imagine that an animal under contract!

 

[jubilee131]

Society in my opinion can regulate, however I say this to prevent such things you mention earlier like paedophilia etc. A marriage is a contract between two consenting adults and should be allowed no matter the sexual orientation. Common sense should prevail in the end and realise that homosexuality is not a "life choice" but that it is natural and if two men/women want to marry then they should, they are consenting adults after all.

Consenting adults seems to be the magic phrase. Can consulting adults do drugs? Can consulting adults have sex for money? Can consulting adults sell body parts? What does consulting adults have to do with anything? If society can prevent incest, bestiality and other things why not same sex marriage? Is the answer because of your morality? What about other people's morality? You want to prevent incest. Someone else may want to prevent same sex marriage. Now what? See the problem?