I
- Status
J
josh987654321
Guest
Before you can recognise someones rights to marriage, don’t you have to first define what a marriage is? mind if I ask you what a marriage is?
I am against same sex marriage, do you or anyone else reading this believe I am wrong, unjust or unjustly discriminating by being against same sex marriage? and if so, may I ask why?
Thank you for reading
Josh
N
Nacho45
Guest
I am confused. You are happy they are being allowed to marry but have no problem with them fornicating for 33 years? This seems backwards to me.
N
Nacho45
Guest
It seems the only way for states to freely exercise their rights to govern themselves is simply to ignore unconstitutional declarations on a federal level and do as they will. If all states did this, as was designed, there is nothing the federal government could do. In fact, it may begin the reduction in the size of the federal government back to a manageable size and stop this headlong plunge into insanity.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
Had it been legal, they would have married 32 years ago.
People fornicate. Your point is---------?
E
epan
Guest
Typically, the Federal Government will withdraw funding to states which do not comply with federal law. About one half of the states (primarily the republican leaning ones) are “welfare states”. By that I mean that they receive more money in federal funding than they pay into the US Treasury in taxes.
This applies to organizations too. We see organizations claiming that they are being discriminated against on the basis of religious beliefs whenever federal funds are cut off because they don’t comply with some federal standard. These claims create a lot of confusion. Accepting federal money is voluntary in those cases, and has nothing to do with practicing one’s religious beliefs.
History shows that your claim is not entirely accurate, that the federal government would have no recourse against states which violate federal law. National Guard soldiers were deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas when the governor of the state tried to bar black children to enter a segregated school.
There was also a horrible war fought in the 1860’s between some southern states asserting their rights, and the federal government which disagreed. At that time, it was not even clear that the Federal Government had any right to take up arms against those states, as President Lincoln himself acknowledged. But, history is written by the victor, and it is generally accepted today that the feds do indeed have the right to enforce federal law within states by use of force.
E
epan
Guest
It doesn’t matter anymore. Hundreds of people have married. This opens the door for future equal protection challenges which would trump any attempts judicially or legislatively to stop same sex marriage in Utah in the future.
Utah is less than 1% of the US population, anyway. Once two states the size of Illinois or larger are required to allow same sex marriage, then more than 50% of the US population will reside in such states.
I don’t think that this trend is difficult to predict. Unless there is a big surprise in the next few years, then the anti same sex marriage laws will all be struck down in the US. This is just one more ruling pushing things in that direction. The vast weight of this civil rights movement has been focused on women’s rights and gender equality for a century. It is as if, the time has come to mop up the outlying related issues. The changes which appear to be happening so rapidly are merely the culmination of more than a century of social and legal change.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Mind if I ask you Epan, do you believe I am wrong, unjust or unjustly discriminating by being against same sex marriage? and if so, may I ask why?
Thank you for reading
Josh
L
LisaA
Guest
Josh I think you’ve made an excellent point with your question. Gays think “marriage” is whatever they want it to be. Now most of them claim that of COURSE this only means two people but since their standard for “marriage” is not based on anything unique, marriage should be open to any type of couple or triple or group that so wants to be called “marriage.”
Marriage is meaningless if it has no definition. I appreciate your challenge. Would the gays and gay supporters who support same sex marriage please define marriage? Is it just based on wanting to share federal benefits? What kind of sex you’re having? Isn’t homosexual sex very different whether we are talking gays or Lesbians? What about two neighbors who just want to combine forces financially? Or two siblings who want the one sibling’s pension plan? Do they have to prove they “love” each other or are engaged in some kind of sexual activity? How about a couple of buddies who both like watching porn together?
Same sex “marriage” has no unique definition as does traditional man/woman marriage. It simply makes the word meaningless.
Lisa
R
rossum
Guest
Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.
- Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
- Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
- Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
- Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
- Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
- Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
- Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
- Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
- Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
- Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
- Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
- Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
Yes, I think you are unjustly discriminating.
Equality. What harm does same sex marriage do to you that outweighs the harm done by denying civil marriage, and all its attendant advantages, to same sex couples?
rossum
J
josh987654321
Guest
Thanks LisaA.
I think it’s only wise to start with the question of what a marriage is, of what it is people are trying to re-define, which is where I assume most people would start, as the good old G.K Chesterton said “Don’t take down a fence until you know the reason it was put up.”
I think alot of those people who are passionately pushing for same sex marriage are the same ones who will turn around afterwards and say “What’s the point of marriage anyway? I don’t even know why people get married at all.”
I’ve found that same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘marriage equality’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and etc etc.
So I believe that either they advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage or they themselves are also discriminating and are also against ‘marriage equality’.
And this opens the door to many other supposedly valid definitions and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
I was watching a Dr Phil episode on this controversial issue of SSM and the conclusion Dr Phil had reached was basically “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?” And I believe on the outside this looks like a very good and legitimate question.
However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it than just don’t do it” and like I said, once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
So my answer to that question would be “It doesn’t, isntead it makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything than pretty soon it means nothing.”
As a poster named Ender on another thread so well articulated it -
I believe Ender is absolutely correct here (and before someone uses the “A House cannot give consent” it wouldn’t need to, because a House is your own personal property and thus it would be absurd to require consent, not simply because it can’t give consent, but because you don’t need consent to do as you wish with your own personal property provided it doesn’t harm anyone).
Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth in the reality that we are a two gender species of a man and a woman, the reality of the “reproductive system” the reality that all evidence points to our sexual organs being designed for reproduction, being designed to be used a certain way. but with the total rejection of any truth, that the definition of marriage is completely arbitrary, how do you place any limit at all on it?
Sorry for the length of this posts, please feel free to reply or refute any of it.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
So marriage can mean anything?
So would you be willing to treat every union someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage as a valid claim? wouldn’t you also be unjustly discriminating with what ever definition of marriage you came up with?
Your right, It doesn’t do any harm to me, I believe it instead makes a mockery of marriage and I believe once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
btw I am not against giving “civil unions” the same legal rights.
Please refer to my above post #592
Thank you for your reply rossum, please feel free to reply/refute any of this.
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
New Testament:
“But in the beginning God made a man and a woman.”
If you don’t believe God did it, than fine, but would you acknowledge that however we came to being, we are a two gender species of a man and a woman? hence monogamy?
That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one.
Would you accept the reality of the reproductive system? the reality of our sexual organs being so uniquely compatible and complementary with the opposite sex, that the use of the sexual organs in a union of a man and a woman is so uniquely different to that of two men or two women?
9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”
Would you accept the unique bond shared between a child and their biological mother and father? so much so, that even those who are adopted eventually got seeking their biological parents, they have a longing to find them.
Have you ever heard of those who have had sex with another person and than once that relationship is broken off, it is as if a piece of them had left with the one who they had shared such an intimate relationship with?
Would anyone call “divorce” a good thing? sometimes necessary, I would agree, but a good thing swapping and interchanging partners?
Thank you for reading
Josh
People might think it foolish that I would use a scripture passage for the defintion of marriage while talking with non-believers, but I am simply pointing out, that this scriptural defintion is not one taken simply by faith, but deeply rooted in reason, in reality.
“But in the beginning God made a man and a woman.”
If you don’t believe God did it, than fine, but would you acknowledge that however we came to being, we are a two gender species of a man and a woman? hence monogamy?
That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one.
Would you accept the reality of the reproductive system? the reality of our sexual organs being so uniquely compatible and complementary with the opposite sex, that the use of the sexual organs in a union of a man and a woman is so uniquely different to that of two men or two women?
9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”
Would you accept the unique bond shared between a child and their biological mother and father? so much so, that even those who are adopted eventually got seeking their biological parents, they have a longing to find them.
Have you ever heard of those who have had sex with another person and than once that relationship is broken off, it is as if a piece of them had left with the one who they had shared such an intimate relationship with?
Would anyone call “divorce” a good thing? sometimes necessary, I would agree, but a good thing swapping and interchanging partners?
Thank you for reading
Josh
N
Nacho45
Guest
It wasn’t legal and even though it is now its against Church teachings. They have been fornicating, which is also sin, for three decades and it doesn’t appear you see this as a problem. Even though they may be legally married they are still fornicating in the eyes of the Church because their marriage isnt real. You support their sinful actions knowing full well it is distorting their souls. I guess I just dont understand how or why.
R
rossum
Guest
No. How on earth did you get that from what I said? There is more than one meaning for the word marriage, that is all. Many words have more than one meaning. For example, “host”:
- *] a person who receives or entertains other people as guests.
*] an animal or plant on or in which a parasite or commensal organism lives.
*] a large crowd or army.
*] a piece of unleavened bread used in some religious services.
Does the existence of more than one possible meaning imply that “host” can mean anything at all? Of course not.
All those definitions of marriage I gave were defined by relevant authorities. For example, Solomon was King, and so could decide the laws of civil marriage for his kingdom.
No. Marriage entails certain rights, such as tax treatment, so marriage has to be as defined by the appropriate authorities.
There is no constitutional protection against mockery. Indeed, free speech includes the right to mockery.
That is one possible solution. Reserve “marriage” exclusively for the religious version, and “civil union” for the legal version, and keep the two entirely separate. However, that would require a lot of changes to existing laws, and with the current US congress…
rossum
F
Farsight001
Guest
And that is completely and utterly backwards. It is anything but bogus, as we have been repeatedly pointing out here. How is it thinly veiled bigotry for the gay couple and the Christian to both get what they want, but NOT bigotry to force the Christians to close their business so the gay couple can get what they want, ESPECIALLY when they can get what they want without forcing the Christians to close their business? Sounds more like thinly veiled bigotry to force the Christians to close their business in the name of “equality”.
P
Personanongrata
Guest
I suppose it’s possible that we just don’t believe the same things. Let’s move on shall we?.
E
epan
Guest
I am not in favor of gay marriage.
But, I recognize that the change in our social fabric and laws is the result of more than a century of the expansion of civil rights, and in particular those changes to the legal definition of gender roles within traditional marriage which have advanced one small step at a time.
If you got the impression that I advocate gay marriage, then I misspoke, or you were not reading me closely enough.
Further, I think that the attacks on gay marriage by calling sexuality mere “behavior” is disingenuous at best, and is better characterized as a ludicrous justification for bigotry. We know that human sexual orientation is far more than mere behavior.
I don’t have an opinion on the justness or unjustness of any of your views on gay marriage. I will say that from a social justice perspective, there is the concept of telos which applies. Catholics would probably refer to this Aristotelian concept as “natural law.” No matter what you call it, the argument comes down to the purpose or essence of the thing. Additionally, there is the idea of honoring the telos (or obeying natural law).
If your view is that purpose of civil marriage is to honor the sacramental and procreative aspects of marriage. If to you, those functions are the essence of marriage, then your opposition to gay marriage is not unjust.
However, there is also the aspect of not denying the right to marriage to those who may disagree with your definition of marriage, as long as their behavior does not interfere with your rights. This is the libertarian approach to social justice. In this case, then your opposition to gay marriage may be seen as unjust. There are plenty of conservative “natural law” advocates, who have no answer to the equally conservative “libertarian” argument. The two views are irreconcilable, in this case. The question then, is which of these principles is more important in governance, to you. When you consider this approach, keep in mind that it is precisely the libertarian principle which allows and supports freedom of religion, and from interference in such practices by our government, The sword cuts both ways. Libertarianism is a deeply rooted aspect of the American concept of social justice.
On balance, while I don’t favor gay marriage, I see it as a natural evolution of social justice litigation and legislation, when viewed in an historic context. I am not going to waste any of my own energy trying to fight against the inevitable. I also don’t see gay marriage as the harbinger of moral catastrophe which some see. Rather, I see it as one more logical small step in the direction that we have been going for a long time, which may indeed be just one more step in the direction of some sort of moral chaos. It is just one small piece of the larger puzzle.
E
epan
Guest
I find that supporters of the Church Hierarchy want it both ways.
They would deny the abuses, which are well documented and sometimes horrific, as not being associated with the Church per se, but rather the actions of a few misguided and imperfect humans. I can buy this argument, as I see the Church as a human institution which is run by imperfect humans. I also know that power corrupts people. Almost nobody is exempt from the corrupting influence of power or wealth.
But then they want to make the claim that the actions of the Church are unassailable, as it is somehow a perfect institution, regardless of how corrupted its leadership may have been in the past. This is where I find that I want to hold my nose. You can’t have it both ways.
It would seem more accurate to me to admit that the Church is a human organization with lofty goals, which are sometimes striven for, and which sometimes are not. Those dark moments in its long history are not to be denied, but to be learned from. The bright moments in its history (of which there are many) are to be admired and emulated.
They would deny the abuses, which are well documented and sometimes horrific, as not being associated with the Church per se, but rather the actions of a few misguided and imperfect humans. I can buy this argument, as I see the Church as a human institution which is run by imperfect humans. I also know that power corrupts people. Almost nobody is exempt from the corrupting influence of power or wealth.
But then they want to make the claim that the actions of the Church are unassailable, as it is somehow a perfect institution, regardless of how corrupted its leadership may have been in the past. This is where I find that I want to hold my nose. You can’t have it both ways.
It would seem more accurate to me to admit that the Church is a human organization with lofty goals, which are sometimes striven for, and which sometimes are not. Those dark moments in its long history are not to be denied, but to be learned from. The bright moments in its history (of which there are many) are to be admired and emulated.
J
josh987654321
Guest
The word “host” changes depending on the context it is being used, none would say that the same use of the word “host” means all 4, yet that is exactly what people wish to do with “marriage” because they want “equality” and not even the scientific community could advocate equality between the two without loosing all professional credibility (hence the reproductive system).
Is the definition of marriage completely Arbitrary?
So like others have said, why is it only a certain group of people who can recieve those legal benefits, why not two or more roommates?
I find it funny that you would bring up the tax example, because in my experience, the majority are actually worse off, or no different at all, as all the tax benefit thresholds are also doubled. (however I’m only familiar with Australia’s tax system)
Okay, are you married? and if not, do you wish to become married if you find the right spouse?
The reason my asking is because I find those same people who are passionately arguing for same sex marriage are the same ones who will answer with “I don’t even know why people want to get married.” because to them, marriage is usually already meaningless.
I don’t know how Iron clad that solution would be, but it would make more sense, it would also recieve alot less opposition I believe.
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status