Marriage and sexuality

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Sexual indiscretions are legal grounds for divorce. Marriage implies monogamy.

Since when does marriage imply monogamy?

 

[madhatter85]

Since when does marriage imply monogamy?

Since when has it not? considering sexual indiscretions are grounds for divorce.

 

[Autodidact]

My Gods and Goddesses say that there is nothing wrong homosexual acts, so by your reasoning the only place that this should be an issue is for people married in churches that revolve around an Abrahamic religion. The problem is that if a state (or the federal government) allows homosexual marriage and a church refuses to marry a gay/lesbian couple because they are the same sex they could lose their non-profit tax exemption which would be very very very costly. That is the only reason some churches care what the government thinks about this issue. Please not that I said they "could" lose their tax exempt status, but that they "would" lose it. There is your issue for the courtroom.

You're mistaken. Church's non-profit status has nothing to do with whom they marry. There are many churches right now, for example, who will not perform inter-faith marriages. That's their prerogative.

The only legal issue around this is that if they lease out their facilities to the general public, they have to comply with anti-discrimination laws that apply to public accommodations.

 

[Kerr]

Since when has it not?

Doesn´t that depend on the culture and people in question?

 

[Autodidact]

Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

That's not what the court ruled. That is the reasoning behind the ruling. The court ruled that the 14th amendment right to equal protection made the Virginia law against mixed-race marriage unconstitutional. This ruling was based, in part, on the fact that marriage is a fundamental right. And one of the reasons that marriage is a fundamental right is that its fundamental to our very existence and survival. That is what we call dicta, not a ruling.

Nevertheless, it doesn't help your argument. The reason that marriage is f. to our e. and s. is not because that's where biological reproduction happens. As we all know, you don't have to be married for that. The reason that m. is f. to our e. and s. is that is where children are reared, and they need stable families. And, of course, that applies to children whose parents adopt them, give birth to them, are of the same sex, or different sex. In other words, this finding of the court applies equally well to same-sex couples.

Sexual indiscretions are legal grounds for divorce. Marriage implies monogamy.

In what state? Here in the U.S., no-fault divorce does not require grounds.

And if you're concerned about a danger to marriage and destabilizing families, that's where you should be aiming your guns.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

You're mistaken. Church's non-profit status has nothing to do with whom they marry. There are many churches right now, for example, who will not perform inter-faith marriages. That's their prerogative.

The only legal issue around this is that if they lease out their facilities to the general public, they have to comply with anti-discrimination laws that apply to public accommodations.

I didn't say they would lose their tax exempt status. I said they could. It's all a matter of time before the hammer comes crashing down. Our wonderful walk-on-water president already has the national debt run to max and he is juicing employers for everything they have. Where will the next batch of cash come from? That redistribution of wealth has to come from somewhere. After all, it is all donated. They won't miss half or so...

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't say they would lose their tax exempt status. I said they could. It's all a matter of time before the hammer comes crashing down. Our wonderful walk-on-water president already has the national debt run to max and he is juicing employers for everything they have. Where will the next batch of cash come from? That redistribution of wealth has to come from somewhere. After all, it is all donated. They won't miss half or so...

Churches could and IMO lose their tax exempt status, but not under our present law and not for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Do I think that homosexuals should be prevented in joining in a union that once had heavy religious connotation (but certainly not belonging to any singular religious institution) but that most churches were happy to become increasingly secular (by failing to protest against the marriages of the non-religious) and in addition that various religious organisations (that ought not to be granted any special consideration above or below any other) would indeed sanction, because either homosexuals do not propagate (along with the infertile and those with no intention of having children who are not differentiated in the considerations) or that I might hold a personal view that homosexuality is not moral (which I have no obligation to use to harm or cause detriment to others)?

No.

 

[Autodidact]

Since when has it not? considering sexual indiscretions are grounds for divorce.

*ahem* Mormons *ahem*

 

[Mr Cheese]

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter85
The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence. (and yes there are physical consequences i am sure you are aware of)You confuse repressing with suppressing. Suppressing desires is something all humans have to do every day of our lives. If we did not suppress every little whim, we would be no better than animals.

You're the one espousing animalistic reproduction as the be-all and end-all of human relationships. We're the ones arguing in favor of caring for children and providing stable families.
__________________
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.

-Thomas Jefferson

 

[Mr Cheese]

Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter85
Based on the supreme court ruling that marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival.

That's not what the court ruled. That is the reasoning behind the ruling. The court ruled that the 14th amendment right to equal protection made the Virginia law against mixed-race marriage unconstitutional. This ruling was based, in part, on the fact that marriage is a fundamental right. And one of the reasons that marriage is a fundamental right is that its fundamental to our very existence and survival. That is what we call dicta, not a ruling.

Nevertheless, it doesn't help your argument. The reason that marriage is f. to our e. and s. is not because that's where biological reproduction happens. As we all know, you don't have to be married for that. The reason that m. is f. to our e. and s. is that is where children are reared, and they need stable families. And, of course, that applies to children whose parents adopt them, give birth to them, are of the same sex, or different sex. In other words, this finding of the court applies equally well to same-sex couples.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Since when has it not? considering sexual indiscretions are grounds for divorce.

You are aware of ployamory are you not?

How about Mormons who have more than one wife their marriage certainly isn't monogamous?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence.

Really haven't you said enough foolish things yet?
Since when isn't there a consequence to any action?

You make it sound as if homosexuals can't control their sexual urges as if when they are finally given the right to marry they will all pile up in a huge public sex fest or something.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You make it sound as if homosexuals can't control their sexual urges as if when they are finally given the right to marry they will all pile up in a huge public sex fest or something.

Secretly I think thats what homophobes would like to do....

I also think they see homosexuals as doign this, as many do, and many did in decades like the 70's and 80's....

but who blames them? they were treated as inhuman or non human prior to this....

Of course homosexuals being homosapiens can and do control themselves....

the inability of homosexuals to control themselves is yet another poor tired old reasson for bigotry. Ironically of course plenty of hetero people do this also.

Further ironically, you could argue modern western monogamy derives largely from the Romans. The same romans who had state run brothels, public orgies and advocated monogamy......:sarcastic

....

But that is bigotry for you, stupid, ignorant bigots in the end arent scary, just pitiful....

It is the minority of bigots, the smart, well eduicated ones, that are the REAL problem.....

The likes of what we see here, don't matter a hill of beans.... because they are simply too stupid...

 

[sojourner]

I believe that you would find that the culture we like to ascribe as American would soon change into something most people would come to hate... While I do not believe that Norman Rockwell's paintings were an exact portrayal of what was once Americanism, I do feel that everyone could relate to those ideals.

Those ideals tended to embrace Joe Average and not try to uplift every sort of oddball behavior. This is why 1950 and early 60's TV shows were so funny. People didn't fret over taking everything and everyone so seriously. People could agree and disagree but everyone found something to laugh out loud at.

And yet society then had very rigid unwritten codes of conduct that everyone seemed to understand. Society existed for the children. Father knew best, or at least his family eventually seemed to bring out the best in him. Andy of Mayberry, really was not just some ignorant policeman. Puppets said the funniest things but it was all for a good clean laugh.

All that mattered was that the children were protected and happy. The rights of families come before the whims of individuals, publically. Privately, that was always a different matter.

Even though race was still an issue, the lost little black boy crying in the department store for his mommy as just as likely to get a sympathetic ear as was the toe head tot.

But in the past each generation grew up and carried the torch. But then one generation decided it wanted to remain the center of attention for life. They became spoiled and arrogant ---- seekers of fun. The last generation to try this faced merely The Depression and a terrible World War. I hate to think what we are headed for...

Yes, let's go back to those fabulous Fifties, when black children weren't allowed to go to school with white kids; where a crippled black lady couldn't sit in the front of the bus. Let's go back to the fab Fifties, where Father knew best, and that's why he was allowed to beat his wife and kids, and there was no recourse. Let's go back to that wonderful time when women were at fault for being raped, and a woman was looked at askance for getting divorced from the miserable SOB who was beating her and playing pitty=pat with his secretary.

Let's go back to those times when homosexuals were grossly misunderstood as being hedonistic thrill-seekers who let their whang-do's do the thinking for them. They couldn't possibly have real feelings like the rest of us, nor minds to think like the rest of us!

What I hate about this culture isn't the freedom of expression, it's the entitlement felt by those who "think they're right."

 

[sojourner]

The same could be said for any behavior though. You would rather us be like animals running around humping whoever we feel like at the time without the thought of consequence. (and yes there are physical consequences i am sure you are aware of)You confuse repressing with suppressing. Suppressing desires is something all humans have to do every day of our lives. If we did not suppress every little whim, we would be no better than animals.

Do you really think that homosexuals do that? Do you really think that they're unaware or ambivalent toward the consequences? In fact, they do what they do in spite of what we do to them. You really are a bigot!

 

[madhatter85]

You make it sound as if homosexuals can't control their sexual urges as if when they are finally given the right to marry they will all pile up in a huge public sex fest or something.

So you agree that sexual urges, even homosexual ones can be controlled. Thanks

 

[Kerr]

So you agree that sexual urges, even homosexual ones can be controlled. Thanks

That does not mean they should be controlled.

 

[madhatter85]

Do you really think that homosexuals do that? Do you really think that they're unaware or ambivalent toward the consequences? In fact, they do what they do in spite of what we do to them. You really are a bigot!

I think you took that wrong. I was not advocating doing anything to homosexuals

 

[madhatter85]

That does not mean they should be controlled.

Why not? They are expected to be controlled everywhere else. why are homosexuals the exception?