Official- no gay marriage ban

[gridironmike]

Originally posted by Renegade7

I know He'll punish them, Mike. That's partially why I'm not making it my problem. I may find it wrong, but it is not my job or responsiblity to punish them for Him. Nor is it anyone elses job but His.

I'm not beating a drum here. By letting your congressman know how you feel, you are doing what is asked by the Bible. That is why I posted this scripture and that is why I spoke up against what I know is wrong:

Ezekiel 3:17-19

17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Destino

What's wrong is the feds need to continue to take power away from the states. The democrats and republicans are guilty of this and it needs to stop. Why not have a country where issues such as this one can be fixed by moving to a state that best meets your needs. Not everything needs to be imposed on the national level where people are least represented.

Let the states decide so the average american can claim a little more power over his or her own life.

I agree big time.

I would love to see the feds get out of the buisness of spending on most government programs as well. Let people decide where to live based on what they want to pay in taxes and what programs they want from their government. A man can dream can't he?

[SkinInsite]

Originally posted by gridironmike

I'm not beating a drum here. By letting your congressman know how you feel, you are doing what is asked by the Bible. That is why I posted this scripture and that is why I spoke up against what I know is wrong:

Ezekiel 3:17-19

17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Is that why Maryland is going to put slot at the ponies?

I mean that's a big no-no in the good book.

It's funny how poeple forget their religious belief when it's time to cash in.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by SkinInsite

Then shouldn't we outlaw gambling too since it's against the teaching of the Bible?

Or are we going to pick and choose.

I have not met many religious people who don't pick and choose which rules to follow.

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by gridironmike

I'm not beating a drum here. By letting your congressman know how you feel, you are doing what is asked by the Bible. That is why I posted this scripture and that is why I spoke up against what I know is wrong:

Ezekiel 3:17-19

17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Speak up, but it isn't our job to punish them. No problem in giving a friendly reminder;) , but it's not our reponsiblity to punish them. That's His.

[Larry]

Originally posted by gridironmike

Yes, I think it is wrong. It is not what I think, it is in the Bible.

Oh, well, then. If it's in the Bible, then obviously it should be in the tax code. In fact, it should be in the Constitution, right.

Just ask your local mullah.

[indygo]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

Someone - I think gbear - has already responded to your question about redefining marriage.

He did express his personal definition of marriage. He said, "Marriage a lasting covenant to love, honor, and cherish each other between two consenting adults sharing a sexual bond which hurts nobody."

By his definition, people must love each other, have sex with each other, and have a lasting emotional commitment to each other. Sounds like he (if he supports gay marriage...he never really said), and perhaps also you, fall into the category of people who are comfortable with something that is just a little bit different than what is already considered marriage but are not willing to go any farther outside that range, as you said...

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

Let's agree that marriage is the union of two consenting adults who want to honor their commitment.

I've found that there is a large number of people who are supportive of gay marriage because it isn't so different from traditional marriage. They can assimilate it and handle it. But those people are unwilling to admit that their support of gay marriage is an emotional decision and not a logical one. They will accuse non-supporters of being emotional bigots, but then they themselves apply the same "bigotry" to other instantiations of alternative marriages.

Take Renegade7's post, for example. He is very supportive of gay marriage, but he is completely non-supportive of polygamous marriages. He even says, "What's next? A guy marrying his cat?" Doesn't that sound just like someone arguing against gay marriage??

There is no evidence to show that gay marriage is harmful to society (because it's never been allowed). AND there is no evidence to show that polygamous marriage would harm society. If disallowing gay marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamy is discriminatory, is it not? There is also no hard evidence to show that intra-family marriages harm society or that loveless marriages harm society or that sexless marriages harm society or that marriages involving teenagers and adults ultimately bring down harm on society.

In addition, "harm" can be defined differently by different people. And then you'll hear the argument of "what gives YOU the right to determine what's harmful and what's not in another person's relationship?" ...or, "What gives YOU the right to decide what's best for all of society?" (Lame arguments, IMO.)

And, as you pointed out in your example of gay couples caring for foster children, there is always a good and a bad example of what "harm" may or may not be done. I'm sure there are plenty of polyamorous families who would put forth their children as fine examples of upstanding citizens in an effort to show how polygamy is not at all harmful to society. There are many traditional marriages that produce good kids and many that do not.

Where are the hard and fast statistics that we will rely on to prove to us what is and what is not harmful to society? How will you satisfy everybody with a decision about what is harmful and what is not?

If you limit marriage to two consenting adults based on the fact that disallowing gay marriage is discriminatory and that they should have equal rights, then you are using the same discrimination when you limit marriage to two people and when you disallow other forms of alternative marriage. It's as simple as that, logically speaking.

The problem that many have with gay marriages is that they view that gays may exist and get together and stuff, but they don't want society to do anything to <i>condone</i> their actions.

That can be reworded to address any other form of alternative marriage, as well.

"The problem that many have with polygamous marriages is that they view that polygamy may exist and stuff, but they don't want society to do anything to <i>condone</i> their actions. "

The only thing I'm saying here is that IF you support gay marriage but not all other forms of alternative marriage, then your view is illogical. And, SkinsNumberOne, the "you" in that statement is not directed at you personally, but at anyone who falls into that category.

I'm still waiting to hear a logical argument that is supportive of gay marriage that doesn't turn out to be just an anti-marriage viewpoint on the bottom line.

[Renegade7]

Cat and man logic was me being sarcastic.

[indygo]

Originally posted by Renegade7

Cat and man logic was me being sarcastic.

:laugh: Well, okay, then. But weirder things have been said and meant. Without some smilie or something as a disclaimer, who'd know?

[Larry]

And, just FWIW, all you 'slippery slopers': Frankly, I'm not that opposed to poligamy (as long as each new arrival knows about it, and agrees). I do see some potential problems, but I'm not 100% certain that I'd support an outright ban.

If you really want to give an example of a potential can of worms, how about when a woman wants to divorce her 7 'spouses', and she has two kids. Does she have to give visitation rights to 7 different people? Does the 'group' have a superior claim for custody, since there're more of them, and really, Your Honor, isn't it better to deprive the child of one parent (the one that doesn't fit in, anyway: she's leaving) than it is to deprive him of seven? And, if he stays with the group, then there'll likely be more parents home, since we all share child-raising duties, so there's almost always an adult in the house.

Wouldn't there be great pressure, when one member of a poligamous marriage leaves, to always grant custody to the group?

(Although, by that same reasoning: Have I just made a case that society should encourage poligamy, since it'd be less traumatic on children if there's a divorce?)

[SkinInsite]

Indygo,

So a gay couple should be denied the right of a straight couple?

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by indygo

:laugh: Well, okay, then. But weirder things have been said and meant. Without some smilie or something as a disclaimer, who'd know?

I'll remember that to create less drama for ya'll.

[Ancalagon the Black]

indygo (and others),

Thanks for the thought-provoking questions. Your ideas have come up before on this board and have been discussed, but perhaps none of the answers has directly addressed your questions the way you’ve phrased them. I’ll try to provide a coherent response – but remember, it’s Friday and my brainpower is ebbing quickly.

First, you state that marriage is fundamentally related to the way in which we procreate. That’s certainly true from a historical perspective, but perhaps less relevant to the institution of marriage today. We have marriages allowed between old people who could not possibly procreate; marriages between people in which one partner is infertile; marriages between people who have absolutely no intention of having children; marriages between people sworn to celibacy (and thus unwilling to consummate the marriage in a traditional sense, and – in some areas – a legal sense); and people such as Britney, who marry without any concern for procreation or honesty of emotion. We can see from all these examples that the legal institution of marriage today has less to do with the concept of procreation than it did in the past, perhaps.

While this state of affairs casts doubt on the contemporary necessity of linkage between marriage and procreation, it doesn’t do a lot to answer your question of “if gay marriage, then why not polygyny or polyandry?” To address this question satisfactorily, it would pay to examine the legal underpinning behind marriages. As it stands, a marriage is a contract between two individuals. A primary aspect of that contract is the notion of exclusivity. The parties involved become united, legally, as one person. Thus the spouse gets de facto power of attorney when a member of the marriage is incapacitated. She can make decisions about what to do if her spouse is on life support, for example. She has visitation rights in hospitals. She becomes a trustee of an estate. She inherits the estate (absent a will) and decides what to do with it. She has exclusive power over care of children, managing property, and allocating resources if the spouse is unable to do any of these things. Her income and her spouse’s income can be treated as joint. That’s part of what the contract does. Now, if the contract were expanded, one could easily see how this all falls apart. Instead of having a union treating two people as one, we would have a contract treating many people as one. Such rights as inheritance and power of attorney would become very, very problematic. With the loss of exclusivity would come a group decision where the decision was related to one, and only one, person before. The entire legal underpinning – that of exclusive contract rights – would have been eroded.

Perhaps this reasoning doesn’t quite convince you. After all, it may be difficult to imagine a situation in which a group decision could work smoothly, but it’s certainly not impossible. One could certainly envision legal twists and turns that would enable such situations. Although these twists and turns appear obviously undesirable to me, you might be of the opinion that they would work just fine. If that is the case, then we could turn to another conception: that of acceptable discrimination. Now, discrimination can be both good and bad. As a society, we have decided that racial discrimination (for instance) is bad. However, discriminating on basis of number is fine. An employer must treat two employees differently from the way she treats one. She is treated differently if she kills two people than if she kills one. As an individual, she can garner frequent-flyer points, but she cannot equally divide frequent-flyer points arbitrarily among a group. However, her race plays no factor in hiring practices, murder charges, or airline miles.

Now, having made the decision that discriminating on the basis of race is wrong, we appear to be moving in the same direction as regards discrimination on the basis of sex. We believe that women should vote, just like men; that women should be paid equal money for equal work; that women can hold any office that men can; and that women are, in general, possessed of the same faculties as men are (from a legal point of view). It’s not perfectly symmetric, of course: women and men enjoy “separate but equal” restroom facilities and, even more asymmetrically, women cannot be drafted into the military. But we appear to be moving toward a standard wherein the law is blind to gender. If this is the case, then discriminating between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage becomes an issue, for it cannot, inherently, be gender-blind. If we have to note the gender of the participating parties in a marriage, then we are discriminating on the basis of gender. The same does not apply to polygamy, as we feel free to discriminate, legally, on the basis of number.

On the basis of these considerations (and others), I think it’s ethically wrong to confer different benefits on different types of couples (while maintaining the word “couples”). However, the word “marriage” is something that I think should be privatized. While I’m ambivalent on the libertarian idea of completely privatizing unions, I think that “marriage” should be reserved to religious or private institutions, and “civil unions” should be the blanket legal term for legally united couples.

(End note: Between beginning this response and finishing it, I was at a meeting during which many fellow posters touched on similar points. Hope this is still not completely useless.)

****

Cskin,

In 1950, 97% of whites supported antimiscengenation laws. This is a vast, vast majority. Were they correct because they were in the majority? Let’s say that 60% of the US population wanted to take your wealth and divide it equally among Americans. Would they be correct because they had the majority? After all, this is government by the people, no?

****

gridironmike,

Arena football is wrong, no matter what anyone says.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Oh, I forgot incest! Here's a non-"it's for the children!" argument against incest: the power dynamic in a family fundamentally undermines the institution of equal partnership/marriage. The relationship between a father and a daughter or two siblings has been heavily influenced by the fundamental hierarchy of the family. To attempt to institute "marriage" in such an arrangement is to feed on a dynamic which has already been determined in advance. It's as impossible in such a situation, I would argue, to obtain legally meaningful "consent" as it would be to obtain consent from a minor.

[Stu]

Here is a link to a report that cites statistics from a few studies.

http://www.mafamily.org/WhyMarriageMatters.htm

A search will reveal many more studies that say the same thing. Additionally, for the last few years there are routinely reports in the news by "incredulous" reporters regarding studies that show the traditional family is better for children and ergo better for society.

Anectdotally, where have you seen the problem children? Homes without a stable father and mother.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Renegade7 They are happy, should we get in the way that because we find it morally wrong? I find it understandable, gay marriage. I don't find polygamy understandable. Gay marriage, i believe can be excepted, but polygamy? No.

Who are you to "judge"? Why apply "your" morals to others? Doesn't seem very fair.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Stu,

The study's contributors argue that a two-parent household is better for the children than a single-parent one. There's *nothing* about homosexual married couples raising children.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Stu,

The study's contributors argue that a two-parent household is better for the children than a single-parent one. There's *nothing* about homosexual married couples raising children.

Yes. The point is a stable two parent household works. There is nothing to support a homosexual couple. I will admit that I am extrapolating, but the absence of the other gender says to me something will be missing. That is why I ended my initial point on this with "We shall see".

Originally posted by SkinInsite So in order to get married a couple have to show how their marriage would benfit society?

Then I think we should stop poor, stupid, young, retarded, genetic inferior people from marrying. I mean how can their children benfit society.

Its a general approach that society has adopted.

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

The traditional family is eroding because-

homosexuals are marrying?

the state is not defining marriage?

No. I am saying that is a symptom of the traditional family erroding. Not a cause per se.

[Renegade7]

Love the post, Ancalagon. I agree with everything but the exclusive right to the term "marriage". But I don't want to get into a debat on that right now. I have to address Stu...

Stu... you're morals and my morals are truelly irrelevant. It's God who's sending them to hell, not you, I, or anyone else. If I can't apply my morals to you, you most definetly cannot apply your me or anyone else.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Renegade7

Love the post, Ancalagon. I agree with everything but the exclusive right to the term "marriage". But I don't want to get into a debat on that right now. I have to address Stu...

Stu... you're morals and my morals are truelly irrelevant. It's God who's sending them to hell, not you, I, or anyone else. If I can't apply my morals to you, you most definetly cannot apply your me or anyone else.

Then why are so against the state sanctioning polygamy. Its their choice.

Slow down...I haven't even read Ancalagon's post yet.

[SkinFaninOKC]

Originally posted by gridironmike

Gay marriage is wrong no matter what gets passed or defeated.

You have the right idea. Men and women aren't suppose to love each other in THAT way.

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by Stu

Then why are so against the state sanctioning polygamy. Its their choice.

Slow down...I haven't even read Ancalagon's post yet.

Did I once say I was forcing it on anyone? Yes, I morally disapprove of it. But thanks to AtB's post, I can make an arguement against it that makes sense. Or at least a basic understanding as to why it can be morally denied and gay marriage excepted.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Conservatives--as P.J. O'Rourke pointed out, you should be for gay people marrying and for homosexuals in church positions. Traditional marriage and going to church? Generally high-income earners? Pretty soon they'll be wanting lower taxes, reductions in welfare, and increased privatization.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Renegade7 Did I once say I was forcing it on anyone? Yes, I morally disapprove of it. But thanks to AtB's post, I can make an arguement against it that makes sense.

And that is really no different than those making arguments against gay marriage. This issue is where we draw the line. Furthermore, if the public debate were over polygamy at this time and you were publicly against it, I can assure you it would be characterized as "forcing your morality on others." Different issue though.

Nice post by Ancalgon. I enjoy true debate vice rants and raves. I think good points are made, but I think the argument for discrimination based upon numbers being different would eventually not stand up to attack and would also fall.

I guess in the end we will see the end to traditional marriage leaving the term of marriage to noone.

[indygo]

Originally posted by SkinInsite

Indygo,

So a gay couple should be denied the right of a straight couple?

I don't have an opinion on that yet. Still working out the logic and thought behind it all.