Marriage Debate

[Beth]

And it has been pointed out numerous times that if it has ever included two people of the same sex, no one bothered to write it down.

Any marriage with more than 2 people would qualify as including two people of the same sex and polygamy in various societies is well documented.

 

[Upchurch]

Any marriage with more than 2 people would qualify as including two people of the same sex and polygamy in various societies is well documented.

Touche

 

[Snide]

You asked a question, and I answered it completely and accurately.

Do you deny that?

I have also lost nothing. Again, the question was answered accurately, and with a citation to back it up.

You, on the other hand, have offered........................nothing.

But here's your chance;

Show me how I'm wrong, and explain what I have "lost".

I don't expect you to understand, but I will not take my "chance" until you answer my question in post #916.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not to put words into thaiboxerken's mouth but I think he was trying to say that the current Christian concept of marriage (one man, one woman until death do us part) has not always and has not universally been the state of affairs.

Perhaps that's what tbk meant. I took "make-up" to mean a reference to who was married, and despite a lot of discussion from the gay marriage proponents, I can't find a single instance of a case where two men were married to each other, and it was treated as a legally valid marriage. (As opposed, say, to a capital crime.) Likewise with women.

Divorce has come and gone. Polygamy and polyandry has been legal and illegal. Penalties for stepping beyond the social norms have varied. Gender composition has not.

Or if it has, I'd like to see it. My TV is pretty much constantly tuned to the History Channel. If some society out there was marrying people of the same sex, I would find that interesting, but I haven't seen it.

 

[bluess]

Perhaps that's what tbk meant. I took "make-up" to mean a reference to who was married, and despite a lot of discussion from the gay marriage proponents, I can't find a single instance of a case where two men were married to each other, and it was treated as a legally valid marriage. (As opposed, say, to a capital crime.) Likewise with women.

Divorce has come and gone. Polygamy and polyandry has been legal and illegal. Penalties for stepping beyond the social norms have varied. Gender composition has not.

Or if it has, I'd like to see it. My TV is pretty much constantly tuned to the History Channel. If some society out there was marrying people of the same sex, I would find that interesting, but I haven't seen it.

Argument from tradition, either for or against, doesn't work for me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Argument from tradition, either for or against, doesn't work for me.

Me neither, but if people are going to put one forward, they may as well get the traditions correct. If people insist that gay marriage has been considered normal in some cultures and places in history, then I'd like to know one such place, culture, or time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bluess hit it on the head. Arguing that just because something always or never has been doesn't really mean much in an intelletual discussion, especially if you're wrong. Huntster is wrong, marriage has not always been between one man and one woman.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If people insist that gay marriage has been considered normal in some cultures and places in history, then I'd like to know one such place, culture, or time.

I don't know that anyone has made this claim.

 

[bluess]

I don't know that anyone has made this claim.

Way, way back in the early dawn of time and near the beginning of this thread it was stated.

I agree with Meadmaker, that if it was so, lets see the evidence.

Regardless, I don't see what it has to do with this current decision.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't lobby or make demands to make the sins I like to commit legal and accepted by others.

That's an interesting viewpoint and one with which I disagree.

If there's something that I enjoy doing which is currently against the law then I would be very eager for it to be made legal - not least because if it were so, I would no longer be risking arrest/prosecution/fine/imprisonment for doing the thing I enjoy doing.

My outlook is different in this way:

I understand why society makes certain behaviors illegal, and I accept the consequences for all behaviors. Further, I don't view punishment as an ill, but as good.

By continuing the act which society bans or regulates, I should accept the limits or consequences for violating society's limits.

So I'll do it in privacy, also fully realizing the dangers both from discovery by society, as well as what such sins do to my very existence.

The most difficult sins to overcome are those committed in private.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why is it that people who support irrational things use such fallacy as their basis?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I understand why society makes certain behaviors illegal, and I accept the consequences for all behaviors. Further, I don't view punishment as an ill, but as good.

I understand why society SHOULD make certain behaviors illegal, but that is much different than why some behaviors ARE illegal. Thus, I see punishment as something that can be absolutely wrong in certain cases.

By continuing the act which society bans or regulates, I should accept the limits or consequences for violating society's limits.

I agree, but if it's something I enjoy then I'll lobby to get the law changed. If it's really important and the legislation doesn't see it my way, I'll go to the courts.

The most difficult sins to overcome are those committed in private.

Or those sins that are only sins in the eyes of the religious nuts. Homosexuals should not strive to overcome being who they are just to satisfy the tenets of your religion.

 

[Huntster]

...I agree, but if it's something I enjoy then I'll lobby to get the law changed. If it's really important and the legislation doesn't see it my way, I'll go to the courts.

And when the courts turn you down?

Or when the constitution is amended?

What then?

Homosexuals should not strive to overcome being who they are just to satisfy the tenets of your religion.

Correct. Further, there is no law banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home.

However, there are civil laws banning the marriage of homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Huntster]

Any marriage with more than 2 people would qualify as including two people of the same sex and polygamy in various societies is well documented.

The two (or more) of the same sex are not married to each other in a polygamist situation, but are married to the one of the opposite sex.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And when the courts turn you down?

Or when the constitution is amended?

What then?

Viva la revolution.

owever, there are civil laws banning the marriage of homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with religion.

Wrong, it has everything to do with religion. The main reason people want to ban same-sex marriage is because of religion.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You asked a question, and I answered it completely and accurately.

Do you deny that?

I have also lost nothing. Again, the question was answered accurately, and with a citation to back it up.

You, on the other hand, have offered........................nothing.

But here's your chance;

Show me how I'm wrong, and explain what I have "lost".

I don't expect you to understand, but I will not take my "chance" until you answer my question in post #916.

There appears to be some confusion. With that post, I answered your question of post #922.

Your post #916:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
People have the right to smoke whatever they please, don't they? Isn't that a private issue? Why can they not legally smoke what they wish, while others can smoke tobacco, and yet others can drink alcohol? What right do you have to tell people they can drink whiskey, smoke tobacco, and not smoke other things? Isn't this a question of equality? If someone were to smoke, say, marijuana, how does that affect your right to drink alcohol? Why does the government have the authority to regulate medications, alcohol, and tobacco, and ban marijuana?

Excellent questions. It is entirely hypocritical that you are allowed to get drunk but not high. What's your point?

The point is that the arguments being made by pro-SSM advocates to legitimize gay marriage can also be made by those who argue for the legalization of marijuana. Yet, the legalization of marijuana is in complete chaos:

1) It is still a federal felony to merely possess the substance (while homosexual activity within the privacy of one's own home is legally protected)

2) State laws are a myriad of various restrictions, allowances, etc.

3) The federal government actively lobbies state ballot initiatives opposing all legalization efforts

4) There is no sign that the U.S. Supreme Court seeks any effort to universalize the marijuana issue (even with regard to medical use) like it did with abortion or like pro-SSM advocates are demanding with regard to SSM.

Laws are not universally "fair" and "even". They reflect the views of the voting public or their elected representatives. Period.

SSM advocates are free to lobby government to allow the re-definition of marriage, but if they fail, I hope they take the political loss in stride like marijuana legalization advocates, and refrain from "acting up", both for their sake as well as the good of society.

 

[bluess]

And when the courts turn you down?

Or when the constitution is amended?

What then?



Correct. Further, there is no law banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home.

However, there are civil laws banning the marriage of homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with religion.

Actually, there are laws that do such a thing. There are also laws that ban cunninlingus and any M-F sex outside of the missionary position.

 

[Pauliesonne]

That has nothing to do with religion.

Who the ◊◊◊◊ do you think you're kidding?

 

[wastepanel]

And when the courts turn you down?

Or when the constitution is amended?

What then?



Correct. Further, there is no law banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home.

However, there are civil laws banning the marriage of homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with religion.

The biggest issue in your argument is that denying gay marriage has no particular reasoning behind it except that gay couples should not be able to enjoy the same perks as straight couples (tax filings, jointly owned property, etc.). That is the biggest issue in this controversy. There are no rational reasons to say that same-sex marriage should be illegal. Unless the Constitution says that only straight people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", any state laws can easily be argued to be unconstitutional in the future.

You have argued that you don't care if one state doesn't recognize your marriage to your wife. Yet, you say that the Federal government recognizing marriages for tax purpose is your standard. What happens if you lose your marriage status with them? What happens if your wife gets sick, and since you're not considered married, your insurance doesn't cover her? Or the hospital doesn't allow you to see her even? Finally, if she dies, then her property (without a will) goes through probate and you have no rights to it?


Banning same sex marriage for dogmatic reasons of tradition is silly. If that were the case, wives would still be property, slaves would still be owned and utilized, and we would still be colonies. It's called progression.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And when the courts turn you down?

Or when the constitution is amended?

What then?

Viva la revolution.

Another al-Zarqawi, are you?

Hear the news today, Mr. Revolutionary?

owever, there are civil laws banning the marriage of homosexuals.

That has nothing to do with religion.

Wrong, it has everything to do with religion. The main reason people want to ban same-sex marriage is because of religion.

Is that another of those "opinions that has the authority of reality"? (See sig lines below.................)