Marriage

[MobBoss]

Of course I noticed it, I was just pointing out that Texas was a bad example.

Plus wiki tells me ''Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman''

So I mean thats like 6 people telling 4 people they can't marry. Is that really right? Should 57% have the ability to tell the other 43% what to do?

In our legal system, that is indeed how it works.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In this case, it is actually 57% telling 3% what they can or cannot do, and 40% saying that they have no right to tell that 3% what they can or cannot do, as most of the people in favor of SSMs are not themselves homosexual.

By the way, this thread is proof that OT can change someone's view on a topic. Before I had mixed feelings on what to do about same sex marriage. Now based on what everyone has said I am certain that there is a best way.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

You do know that once it was aginast the law and against most people's common sense for homosexuality.. My point is that relying on human law is often futlie because it often changes and thus we must be relying on a stronger set of foundations.

I do understand and that is why we don't have laws chiseled into stone anymore, but allow for the law to evolve as we become more advanced and are able to shed our prejudice. Slavery and having your wife as a property that you could beat are illustrative examples of bad laws we have discarded.

I personally don't see relying on human law as futile at all. I'll willingly admit it isn't perfect, but its ability to change and adopt I see as a strength, not a weakness. May of today's modern ethical questions aren't really covered by older obsolete religious laws. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet for example? How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon? What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

New points of law will always come up and we will have to face them and adapt to them as they do.

 

[Paradigne]

To me marriage is between one man and one woman in the eyes of God. I do not believe in divorce but do believe that 80% of todays married couples should have been united under a 'civil union'

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed they are. That's why homosexuals can marry. Oh, wait, they can't.

Indeed they are..thats why I cant marry a man either.

How fair is it to have a minority that doesn't have the same rules as you do?

Once more, under the law, they have the same rules as I do.

If you're not helping them get the same rights, then you're opposing it. In other words, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Very typical rhetoric and simply recognized as such. If I made such a statement towards homosexuals as being "part of the problem" I would be branded a bigot. Again, please point out to me where anyone has any right to be married in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. You wont find it. The problem, if one even exists, is that our government, as a democracy, is majority rule, thus there will always be those that have complaints.

Studies may show that children from a mother-father dynamic have kids with the least developmental problems, but time and time again I see in the news children being abused by a mother-father dynamic, or a mother-boyfriend/father-girlfriend dynamic.

I also see news about priests sexually molesting little boys...does that mean all priests do it? Nope. Your point is invalid.

I don't recall hearing of a child with same-sex parents having that problem.

Hmmm, just because it isnt in the news every day doenst mean it doesnt happen: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_foster-parent-molestation-illinois.html To somehow insinuate that such behavior is unknown because it isnt on the news all the time is rather short sighted at best.

Now, I'm not saying that SSP's are defacto better, but I don't hear about them killing or abusing their kids like I do with the traditional mother-father dynamic. Statistically, with about 10% of the population being homosexual, I should hear about 10% of the abused/killed children coming from SSPs. But like I said, I can't recall one.

Statistically, the homosexual population is about 3-5%, not 10%. Your skewing of percentages is just nonsensical. Do you really think that simply because you think 10% of the population is homosexual that in turn you should see 10% of the news stories indicating abusive behavior by SSPs? First of all, the percentage of gay parents is extremely low compared to the number of heterosexual parents for obvious reasons. SSPs are most certainly not 10% of the parents out there....I would not hesitate to guess that SSPs most likely form less that 1% of the total parent population out there. If you have ANY data that indicates otherwise by all means link it up.

 

[C~G]

Between two human inviduals of legal age, what gender they happen to be isn't any of my business really.

This is in level of open society but what different churches deny or allow their members to do isn't any of my business either.

EDIT: This currently but in the future polygamy might become an valid option. Depending how societies evolve.

 

[MobBoss]

I do understand and that is why we don't have laws chiseled into stone anymore, but allow for the law to evolve as we become more advanced and are able to shed our prejudice. Slavery and having your wife as a property that you could beat are illustrative examples of bad laws we have discarded.

Sorry, but I dont see embracing such behavior as homosexuality as equating to being "advanced". Homosexuals are not slaves and they are not property. Btw, wives have never been property in the law of the United States as far as I can recall.

 

[Shadylookin]

get rid of marriage alltogether. Then make the process to attain the legal rights that come with marriage a simple trip to the courthouse and filling out papers. This gets rid of the whole debate. Now homosexuals, poligamists, and heterosexuals can get the legal rights they deserve and can choose to have religious ceremonies if they wish.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In our legal system, that is indeed how it works.

I'm not asking how it works, i'm asking is it right? On personal issues such as these, should people be able to tell others what they can and can not do? Should I have the right to tell you how many children you can have, for example?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not asking how it works, i'm asking is it right? On personal issues such as these, should people be able to tell others what they can and can not do? Should I have the right to tell you how many children you can have, for example?

In some cases of course. Just about anything can be abused. While there is no law per se that limits how many kids you can have, likewise is it right for a person to get as many women as pregnant as he can and then just be a deadbeat dad leaving them to fend for themselves?

Society has the right to enact any law that it deems fit. We can obviously enact laws which say you cant allow people to smoke in your own business, or laws that say you cant use certain recreational illegal drugs, or laws like extremely high taxes on cigarettes (aka "sin" taxes) in order to discourage their use. Its not a matter of being right or not...thats just how it is.

 

[IglooDame]

In some cases of course. Just about anything can be abused. While there is no law per se that limits how many kids you can have, likewise is it right for a person to get as many women as pregnant as he can and then just be a deadbeat dad leaving them to fend for themselves?

Society has the right to enact any law that it deems fit. We can obviously enact laws which say you cant allow people to smoke in your own business, or laws that say you cant use certain recreational illegal drugs, or laws like extremely high taxes on cigarettes (aka "sin" taxes) in order to discourage their use. Its not a matter of being right or not...thats just how it is.

(bolding mine)

Wow... You, sir, just blew my mind.

And not in a good way.

 

[MobBoss]

(bolding mine)

Wow... You, sir, just blew my mind.

And not in a good way.

How so? You dont think a society sets its own rules?

 

[Truronian]

Indeed they are..thats why I cant marry a man either.

Once more, under the law, they have the same rules as I do.

I think that you know this isn't what we are getting at though

Homosexuals cannot marry the person they want to settle down with, whereas you can. (Assuming there is a mutual desire for marriage with the respective partners)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that you know this isn't what we are getting at though

Homosexuals cannot marry the person they want to settle down with, whereas you can.

Actually, heterosexuals can't always marry the person they want, either. I mean, not if the other person doesn't want to marrry them.

This doesn't change the terms of the debate, I'm just saying is all.

 

[IglooDame]

How so? You dont think a society sets its own rules?

Sure, but this concept you seem to have going, that society's rules are independent of morality or form their own sort of morality (I'm not sure which, and I'm not sure you're sure which, either) has me alternately baffled and saddened.

Democracy may be the best sort of government going, but let's not pretend that 51% of the people agreeing means that something is moral, ethical, right, or even a good idea.

 

[Truronian]

Actually, heterosexuals can't always marry the person they want, either. I mean, not if the other person doesn't want to marrry them.

This doesn't change the terms of the debate, I'm just saying is all.

Fine then Mr. Pedantic

I'll edit it.

 

[Left]

How so? You dont think a society sets its own rules?

We have a Supreme Court for a reason.

 

[MobBoss]

Sure, but this concept you seem to have going, that society's rules are independent of morality or form their own sort of morality (I'm not sure which, and I'm not sure you're sure which, either) has me alternately baffled and saddened.

Democracy may be the best sort of government going, but let's not pretend that 51% of the people agreeing means that something is moral, ethical, right, or even a good idea.

Society does form its own morality and it has the option to change it depending upon the majority opinion of that society. Lots of people today think owning a handgun to be immoral. I assure you, if a majority of people carried this opinion, gun laws would be far more restrictive then they currently are. Do you doubt that in the least?

You can see this happening where smoking is concerned. My prediction is that smoking will eventually be outlawed or simply just taxed out of existance....why? Because society has pretty much determined that smoking is immoral.

We have a Supreme Court for a reason.

Correct. So tell me why we havent seen a gay marriage descrimination lawsuit come to the Supreme Court yet?

 

[GenMarshall]

So tell me why we havent seen a gay marriage descrimination lawsuit come to the Supreme Court yet?

Since we have a mostly conservative judges sitting on the benches in the Supreme Court. If a Gay Marriage Discrimination lawsuit comes to them, I have a feeling that they would overturn it anyway.

 

[Narz]

all options (expect the illegal bit in the last one).

two men and three women should be able to all marry each other plus a goat for all I care.