Homosexual marriage

Supporting the right of multiple consenting adults to enter into a relationship is not a defacto support of exploitation. Neutral is just red herring.

 

OK, then show me a historical example of a polygamist society that was not deeply exploitative of women? Just one.

Having spent some time in the ME, where polygamy is allowed (up to four wives) there were a couple of things that I saw.

#1 - Islam allows polygamy ONLY when a husband can provide for his multiple wive in EXACT equality. Love them the same and provide for them the same. In practice, most Muslims marry only one woman.

#2 - those that marry more than one woman are often of two social classes.

a. From the political and economic elite, and these marriages are the solidification of business and political relationships (women are thus, essentially, bargaining chips)

b. Those from lower classes who have multiple wives are ... creepy. The wives are obvious extensions of their sexual desire, and, even with multiple wives, those from these classes that I met rarely kept their fidelity to even multiple wives - these women were nothing more than trophies and sexual outlets.

And we see the same thing in the fundamentalist LDS church, where Jeffs raped young girls as young as 12 years old. We should encourage this?

Swingers you say? We should sponsor adults into legal contract that the government supports and indeed provides tax incentives and fundamental rights to support?

Well, if these are the doors we are considering opening on a legal level in order to facilitate homosexual marriage, then the answer is one great big HELL NO!

Homosexual marriage is not, and never was, about tax credits or legal issues. It is first and foremost about equality - humanity. Humans are not tort reform.

And yet the legal institution of marriage is entwined with the religious views in that clergy are allowed to perform them.

Do you really think once this happens, and it is going to happen, that there are not going to be gay couples that sue churches who refuse to perform these ceremonies? Its already happened in states that have legalized gay marriage.

Lets face it, no one in this thread, or quite frankly anywhere, has had a solid discussion for the religious reasons NOT to perform gay marriages (and some churches reasonably disagree). As soon a gay couple attempts to use the legal system to force a church or an religious group to perform the ceremony - well, its no longer about equality is it? It will be about forcing your values on others.

As I have stated, there is more than enough bigotry on both sides of this issue. There are religious people who do not understand homosexuals or their choices, and there are homosexuals who really don't have a clue about the theological constructs of marriage and family .... but how dare you say no to them?

Reason, compassion, understanding - there is a dearth of these things in this issue all around.

 

Aside from basically calling me a liar, you yourself provide absolutely nothing other than heated rhetoric. However, I will ignore your slur and chalk it up to an emotional outburst.

The marriage contract between a man and woman is meant to buttress the already constructed commitment between a man and woman who will, most likely, procreate and create a nuclear family which is the cornerstone of American society and the economy.

There is no discrimination....Marriage is between a man and a woman. Every man and every woman can marry a person of the opposite sex. The fact that some choose not to exercise that right does not cause any constitutional issue and is no reason to change the institution.

 

You are ranting on and on about something very simple, consenting adults making consensual decisions. No one is advocating marrying off 12 year old girls, no one is suggesting that a church be forced to recognize a union (they are not forced to now) so drop it.

Such a premise of exploitation could very well rule out any sort of religion that puts the man above the woman on all decision making authority. It is ironic you would cite Islam and Mormonism (yet leave out Christianity) as an argument against such relationships.

 

You can remind them of this fact a thousand times but they are simply unwilling to accept it, IME. My guess is they enjoy the confluence of their faith with our government and to acknowledge certain facts as above concedes erosion of the special deference this government shows religion--particularly the Christian one.

 

Ronald Reagan would be very unhappy with your endorsement of the nanny state. You should really take that quote off your sig line--your are doing it a great disservice and you clearly do not understand its meaning.

 

The failure is with the fool who can't figure out the difference between a social custom and a body of law.

 

A complete fallacy: The arbitrary stipulation to gender to enter a civil contract most certainly constitutes discrimination. In the absence of any compelling state interest, government has no cause of action and MUST apply the law equally without regard to popular opinion or notions of propriety or tradition.

This is why we need to simply get government out of the marriage business--it does not belong there and does not need to be there. It is a needless intrusion on the citizens' personal lives. Every right, grant, and privilege conferred by civil matrimony can--and should--be accomplished by private contract. Then we can move on from this boorish topic and go out and live our very short lives in peace and happiness, secure in the knowledge that we are free people to the greatest extent possible--and what was it Ronald Reagan said about liberty?

 

already refuted.

every black man can marry a person of the same race. the fact that some choose not to excercise that right does not cause any constitutional issue.

see where your argument fell apart?

 

You are argueing contractual relationships between adults. There is this little thing called parental consent, and if it is contractual law that trumps all else, then a parent 'contracting' his guardianship to another 'parent' is fine and dandy is it not?

Do you really think that everyone out there looks at the law and goes with its spirit not looking for loopholes or gotcha's to exploit? Should we be miondful of these things as we draft legislation for an issue we have shaped as a 'legal' issue that is very much also a social and moral issue - an issue of human dignity.

As for the rest, onec again, you readily display your ignorance. The Mormon Church is a sect of the Christian faith, it dabbling with polygamy was brief, resulting from extreme persecution which left far more men than women.

In warning to both you and Shiva, in a decision that was supposed to bestow the blessing of family and children on those who would otherwise have gone without - the practice quickly warpped into the abuse that Warren Jeffs was just jailed for. The church disavowed the practice and now excommunicates all those who adopt this mentality without question.

Do you see how innocent intentions can be exploited? Even a century later that decision haunts thousands.

As for the larger Christian Sect itself, no branch officially allows polygamy. Kim Jung Il however, has several wives/concubines. Perhaps I should have included atheism then?

We do not make policy off of shrill emotionalism and ignorance.

 

Apparently I have won the debate as you are stooping to personal attacks now.

 

Homosexuals are not a race...see where your argument fell apart?

 

homosexuals are made up of GENDER. no right can be denied based on race, religion or GENDER.

See where your argument fell apart, again?

 

Rubbish...The subject is the marriage contract which is well defined as between a man and woman. There is no 'arbitrary stipulation' in fact, opposite genders is required to fulfill the contract and always has been.

AND the law is applied equally..any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man and fulfill the requirements of the contract.

Federal recognition of marriage is not government intrusion it is meant to support procreation and the building of nuclear families which form the corner-stone of our society. Apparently anything that you disagree with is an 'intrusion' on your personal freedom. I have news for you, whether you like it or not, you live in a society and I doubt whether Ronald Reagan would disagree. That 'Shining city on a hill' would lose most of its luster were it to adopt your prescriptions.

 

laws evolve

right and wrong is set

ie.... the laws of sodomy have evolved; it dont make it right


the song remains the same;

in thru the out door, aint talkin' about love

 

lol, this post is one giant contradiction.

 

You obviously have no idea what your talking about. What is socially acceptable changes dramatically within a culture, even in the span of just a few years.

Why would you believe that the "Loving" decision would only apply to race? Fact is "Loving V. Virginia" was one of numerous cases that laid down the precedent that marriage is indeed a fundamental right that is afforded to all United States citizens.

 

Stating a fact is not a personal attack. You do not believe in liberty, but rather in big government paternalism and authoritarian nanny-statism. You are every bit a social engineer as Lenin or Mao--concerned with what you deem "good for society" rather than with the rights of each citizen. And that's fine, but you ought not quote liberty when you don't really mean it.

 

Once again, your ignorance of basic legal principles is stunning. Contractual law does not "trump all else" as you suggest. It exists, at its most fundamental, to insure specific performance between the parties to a contract. As we have already listed the requirements to enter a contract ad nauseum, I will not repeat them all over again. However, there is another requirement that I have not yet referenced in these discussions because until now, it has been irrelevant to the discussion. But now, since you are suggesting that a parent could "contract guardianship," I must remind you that a contract made for an illegal purpose is null and void on its face. As it is illegal to own, sell, transfer, or otherwise tender human beings, your suggestion is preposterous on its face. Furthermore, "guardianship" as you reference has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with marriage. Guardianship of a minor child is automatically effective to the biological parents the moment the baby's head pops out of the vagina.

To say that LDS "dabbled" with polygamy is like saying the Pope "dabbled" in biblical scripture--polygamy was at the heart of the Mormon faith until some nice Catholics and Protestants decided they were so offended by the practice that they were going to burn the Mormons alive in their own homes--culminating with the cold-blooded murder of LDS founder Joseph Smith while he was being held in prison on treason charges. This is the ONLY REASON the church eventually abandoned the practice around the turn of the 20th Century.

The abuse perpetrated by modern Christian polygamists in the U.S. did not start until the "Jack Mormons" or "Fun(*)(*)(*)(*)etalists" were driven deep underground. That they are isolated from the rest of society is the result of their religious practices being criminalized and the subsequent persecution accordant to same. So much for religious freedom, eh?

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

Au contraire mon frere!