L
livingwordunity
Guest
And SS"M" is the fruit of that one slippery slope of sin that began with adultery, divorce, and fornication.
What does the "gay" lobby plan to do about the fact that "gay marriage" currently discriminates against bisexuals?
- Status
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Actually it started with Rousseau’s Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse published in 1761 causing the concept of marriages of love to catch on.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
How about requiring legal consent? That really takes out all of those…
E
epan
Guest
Children, animals, and corpses cannot give consent. I suppose someone could consent to be the victim of cannibalism. However, like being able renounce the right to claim bankruptcy, I doubt that one can renounce the right to life in this way. The right to give up one’s life is generally reserved for end of life decisions, and also for the military, law enforcement, fire fighters… jobs which are inherently life threatening.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Since the state can arbitrarily make a radical change to the civil definition of marriage with just a stroke of a pen what would stop them from adjusting the civil law regarding the requirement for consent especially when consent laws already do change and vary from state to state?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It’s an exaggeration to say that they can make an arbitrary change the law with a stroke of a pen. That stroke of the pen is often contingent the proposal of a change in law and either elected leaders or voting citizens to come to a majority decision about whether that change is acceptable. There have been times when the elected leaders have made decisions that the community did not agree with and there was enough rebellion in the community to get the laws revoked (ex: prohibition). So it many cases it could be said the community is the body that makes the final decision on many matters. The evolution of the laws is one of the indications of the changing ethos of the community.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think you are right, your right to life can’t legally be given up. Back in 2001 Armin Meiwes found a volunteer on a website that had been called “Cannibalism Cafe.” It’s said what happened from there was documented on video, but it was decided that the video was never to be made public. The two men tried to eat one of the man’s members together and things ended with the volunteer being slaughtered and eaten. Despite consent there was a charge of murder and Armin is now said to be in jail living as a vegetarian. Consent was not a factor for the conviction.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I actually censored a good bit of details out, including some other examples that are far more disgusting.
thanks for the nightmares man…
L
Lokadottir
Guest
thank gods you did
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
How droll
E
epan
Guest
Can you cite an example of radical change to the definition of civil marriage? So far, we have only seen gradual, methodical and predictable change, as far as I can tell. The movement towards SSM is more than a century in duration. In more than 100 years of the gradual change, the consent requirement in sexual relations has been strengthened. For example, it was perfectly legal for a man to rape a woman, in some circumstances, 50 years ago, and entirely legitimate in more circumstances a century ago. If anything the historic trend is to more stringent consent requirements.
Your perception that there is radical and sudden change in this area neglects the sweep of history which has led to this point in time.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The redefinition of marriage to so-called same-sex “marriage” is final phase of the progressive attack on marriage that started with the pill, abortion, and “no fault” divorce.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Views on marriage and what it has meant have been evolving for a few thousand years over time and geography. What you are witnessing is one of many changes that has occurred. The industrial revolution led to the emergence of the middle class; people who could afford to make a living independent from their extended families. Labor shortages during the war lead to women being able to enter the work force, women’s right movements, and more have contributed to some of the more recent changes. The pill and abortion are not where the shift in marriage and roles began.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Please tell me I’m misreading you: are you suggesting that married women being allowed to work has led to same-sex “marriage?” Because married women are most definitely not barred from working by the Church, whereas many of the true catalysts (abortion, contraception) are indeed banned.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Yeah, you are misreading. The statement “Views on marriage and what it has meant have been evolving for a few thousand years over time and geography” is not focused on same sex marriage. It’s talking about views of marriage in general. Changes in economic potential have an impact in how marriage is engaged. For more recent examples look at the changes in your people have engaged marriage in developing countries in which the middle class has been rising over the past few decades. Contrary to livingwordunity’s expression that marriage is being attacked I think it’s under change prior to the alleged attack and will continue to change after said attack is over.
Coincidentally TED Talks just put out a video talking about the evolution of marriage (perhaps because of Valentine’s day?).
youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZ6QB5TSfk
There was a recent conversation among my coworkers about marriage. May of them view marriage as a business arrangement. Even among the few that had been raised in a family that identified as Catholic the views on marriage were not sacramental. Most are paired up with another individual, some of them have children, but the count of those that have interest in getting married is pretty low. As one of them had said he didn’t think that it would be a good business decision. I myself have before questioned the good of marriage beyond the legal benefits that come with it. In general there seems to be an increasing trend of heterosexuals Going Solo and not carry much about marriage there’s increasing apathy about same sex couples getting married.
T
TCEL
Guest
I certainly agree with you there. In the climate I’ve grown up in (not personally, but generally), it’s so easy to say, “What’s the point?” And this is the continuation of the erosion of the meaning of the word. Where I disagree is that I think marriage is a good thing. But, I was blessed to grow up in a family that exemplified that.
F
frobert
Guest
That is a conundrum for bisexuals but all it means is that, like the rest of us who love two people, the bisexual has to make a choice or else he/she will be a bigamist. So unless you are advocating for legalizing bigotry, which I am not aware of any lobby–gay or otherwise–attempting to do bisexuals will have to choose. Every choice we make is a trade off so I have no empathy or sympathy for bisexuals in this respect.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
But this issue of bigamy addresses the flaw in the argument for homosexual marriage. Why should marriage be limited to just two individuals? If the argument that marriage should be limited to male-female is wrong, why isn’t the argument that it should be limited to 2 people wrong? If you are going to redefine something, you need to be able to defend what you don’t redefine (in this case marriage just being for 2 individuals).
F
frobert
Guest
Do you have any knowledge of bisexuals lobbing to redefine marriage as more than two people? I understand how some may think they have a right to do so, personally, I have no sympathy for them. There are some polygamist sects in the US but I don’t think they have a lot of support
In the democratic system we live in, when people are going to be affected by something, they should be able to influence or resist what happens. This doesn’t mean everyone gets everything they want. It just means that people’s desires should be fairly balanced with the desires of everyone else involved.
If bisexuals and polygamists want to form a lobby to redefine marriage to their liking they have a right to do so, but their right to do so does not obligate any gay or other groups support their lobby. On the other hand such other groups do have the right to lobby against them. Balance is the key word.
- Status