quote: This fundamentally defeats the principle of federalism, which is fundamentally how our system of government works.
Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc.
They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not.
As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted.
Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws.
Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers! :D-->
Ex: The point is that marriage has a traditional definition, with certain rules. Now, homosexuals want to redefine it to suit their wishes, regardless of how it has always been practiced. There have been many, many homosexual men who married women, either for appearance's sake, or to have children, or some other reason. There is currently no sexual-preference check in order to get a marriage license, but you do have to have one and only one of each gender to do so. There is no ban on homosexuals entering into marriage, they just can't do it with another person of the same gender. That's just how marriage works--like the priesthood. You want to be a priest? Fine. But you have to obey the rules, and one of those is that you must be celibate. Why should they have to make an exception because some people don't want to choose celibacy? There are other churches which do allow marriage of the clergy.
I've forgotten at the moment who was making the "democracy" argument for states voting on gay marriage one by one. That doesn't wash. Why? Well, what would have stopped the Southern states from re-instating slavery at the first general election after the Civil War?
We should address the secular inequity from gay/single vs. married, but only that. Anything more would build even more on the new state-sponsored religion--political correctness.
but 6er... I don't think your analogy holds... one is a set of rules for a particular religious sect that some may or may not want to belong to, the other is for society as a whole... and before you say "it's just for the homosexuals" it's not, it's for "people" wanting to share in the same societal and governmental benefits that everyone else does...
isn't it?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys.
Abigail, I was serious in the first part, but I thought about some of the possible permutations we might see once the M/F requirement was lifted.
I think churches have always managed to certify and sanctify marriages according to their beliefs, and I don't think that should change. If you only believe in heterosexual marriage, get married in a church that believes likewise. If you are an Episcopalean, change churches.
Maybe this relates to Zixar's point - churches associate themselves around scriptural doctrines which do not change with "every wind." If the church has members who wish to change the rules, it must decide, as many have, whether it is a theocracy bound to scriptural edict, or a democracy bound to change with the trends. There is plenty of room for both, and nobody is preventing anybody else from joining or switching to the church that teaches what you want to hear.
I can understand the anger JL might harbor from his early experience, and how it translates into his current perspective. I think it's wrong though. He experienced what countless girls his age have experienced and come to expect from older men, and unlike them, he had considerable physical strength to defend himself. On the other hand, the girls may handle it a lot better than he has, emotionally speaking. (No offense, JL, but your conclusion - "if there weren't any it wouldn'a happened" - just sounds way over the top.) Girls have a lot more practice at fending off advances and so they are more resiliant. It's the guys who tend to be "girls" about it, so to speak.
M&A your anger seems a lot less focused. Maybe I missed it but you never explained why it is so heated. What happened?
My own problem with the various activist groups has more to do with their politics. They are fairly predictable when November rolls around. Since liberalism is on the surface more permissive, I can understand it, but some of the more radical groups are pretty hard to take. Act Up, for instance, is like a PETA for people.
I do believe the law should adapt. If a couple wishes to marry, there is a spiritual component provided by the organization they choose, and there is a legal component, provided by the state.
Where children are involved, if married couples receive tax deductions (they ain't much), then all couples with children should.
There will be additional costs, but there will be benefits as well, many intangible though palpable. Social stability for one. Marriage is a debt of faithfulness which makes one stop and consider more than just "#1."
There is a "marriage penalty" that probably more than offsets any deductions for kids (but I don't know), and everybody will have to pay it until Congress 86's it.
If a friend from work invited me to his or her "alternative" wedding, I would want to attend. I'd even be honored. I haven't forgotten the Judeo-Christian socio-theocratic prohibitions-by-fiat I once accepted. I no longer accept some of them. It's just about people, and the people I know are good people.
We've all adjusted our lives to the times, and in most ways, much for the better. We keep the commandments that need keeping. The others belong to the past, by most measures a darker age.
it is about PEOPLE. i know everyone makes it about religion and political agenda, whatever. but what i myself am talking about is people deserving to be treated equally, you know ?
You seem to be making the argument that priestly celibacy is in some way an eternal truth that is set in stone.
It is in fact only a discipline of the western rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is subject to amendment at any time (although not under the current Pope). There are in fact married Catholic priests of other rites and some who were Anglican priests who came over are also married.
Yes, homosexuals have entered into heterosexual marriages for some of the reasons you stated, I even did so myself. Even when you make the argument that you can always go to another church that becomes difficult to apply unless you are suggesting that all homosexuals should desert the USA for Canada or other more progressive nations, which in itself creates all sorts of difficulties, and in any case why should a significant group of people have to be exiles from their own land?
The USA is not some institution that people can easily choose to leave for a competitor. It is not a theocracy run by celibate old men who do not allow decisions to be made by others.
It is "we the people" and gays are people. If it is truly the land or opportunity and equality, the beacon to the world that it is always proclaiming itself to be, then it has to acknowledge that a take it or leave it attitude will no longer wash. People have a right to make their voices known and heard. The fact that you might not like what they have to say is neither here nor there.
I have little time for "political correctness" myself. But I do have time for freedom and equality.
Oh, good grief! What is it with you people and analogies? All right, fine. Here's another one that's entirely secular, and government-based, to boot.
Scene: Outside an American Air Force base
GUARD
Good morning, sir. May I see your military ID?
MAN
I haven't got one.
GUARD
What is the nature of your visit today, then, sir?
MAN
Oh, I heard that you can buy things cheap at the BX, so I came to do some shopping.
GUARD
Sir, the base exchange only sells to active or retired military personnel.
MAN
Oh. You won't make an exception for me? I'm a citizen after all. I pay your salary, and the subsidy on that merchandise so you can buy it cheap at the BX!
GUARD
Military personnel only, sir.
MAN
Well, how do I become one, then?
GUARD
You could enlist, but...
MAN
But what?
GUARD
How old are you, sir?
MAN
60. What's it to you?
GUARD
I'm afraid that's too old to enlist.
MAN
Isn't that age discrimination?
GUARD
Well, can you run an 8-minute mile with a full backpack?
MAN
Not any more.
GUARD
Well, there you go.
MAN
So I can't shop at your store because I'm not military, and I can't join the military because I'm too old. That means I can't shop at your BX just because I'm too old? That certainly is ageist!
GUARD
Well, indirectly, that's correct.
MAN
There ought to be a law!
GUARD
As soon as they pass it, I'll defend it, sir. Until then, it's off to Wal-Mart with you.
MAN
I don't want to go to Wal-Mart! I want to shop at the BX! Since when did this become Nazi Germany?
GUARD
If this were Nazi Germany, I'd have shot you by now. Now please clear the gate area, sir.
quote: This fundamentally defeats the principle of federalism, which is fundamentally how our system of government works.
Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc.
They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not.
As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted.
Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws.
Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers! :D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Trefor, thank you for the thoughtful response. But, that is our system, as flawed as it may be.
On the area of "rights:"
Homosexuals should undoubtedly have the same freedom of speech, press, and religion as heterosexuals.
Homosexuals should have the same right to bear arms as heterosexuals.
etc., etc., etc.
No state should be able to make laws that abridge those rights for anybody. On that point I'm sure we agree.
However, again, where is marriage defined as a "right." To my knowledge, it is nowhere. If it is not a right, the states can regulate it. They do so in statutory law and administrative regulation. As long as those laws and regulations do not violate somebody's constituional rights (not perceived rights, but those rights that are actually are enumerated in the US Constituion), they have the full authority to do so. In this country, we have a patchwork of marriage laws. In some states, both parties must be 18. In some, 17. There are even a couple where they can be as young as 14, with their parents' consent. In MD, the age is 18, 16 with parental consent, but if the female is pregnant, they can marry at 15 without parental consent (but, with a doctor's certificate that she is pregnant). That's the way it is. And, truly, that's the way it is supposed to be. Messy, but for a country this size and this diverse, that's the only way it can be.
If a legislature passes a law to change the criteria for issuing a marriage license and the governor signs that legislation, then so be it. But when a court intervenes and tells a legislature what laws it must pass, particularly when that legislature is not in violation of the US Constitution, and that ruling will impact all 50 states, then that is a major problem in my mind. The violation of process is a far bigger problem than the issue itself, to me.
Honestly, the best way to achieve your side's ends is through the constituional process. Amend the 15th Amendment to forbid discrimination based on sexual preference or actions, based upon that sexual preference.
...However, again, where is marriage defined as a "right." To my knowledge, it is nowhere...
Well, depending upon your marital experience(s), I would think that marriage would be a "pursuit of happiness". So...
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
To me, that implies a right to marriage. But I'm no lawyer and I don't know how or even if the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional law.
6er... yerowtherman... but I guess I'm too far behind... I still don't see what one has to do with the other... why don't you just say whatever it is that you're trying to communicate by way of parable???
or am I the only one who doesn't get it? (I am from Texas ya know, and old... so I need some help here)
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
...However, again, where is marriage defined as a "right." To my knowledge, it is nowhere...
Well, depending upon your marital experience(s), I would think that marriage would be a "pursuit of happiness". So...
quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
To me, that implies a right to marriage. But I'm no lawyer and I don't know how or even if the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional law.
_?????????????_
That's sort of funny...A lot of fundamentalists (who know nothing about law)have tried to use that phrase as justification for outlawing abortion.
Anyone care to argue why appeals to equality and liberty should advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of homosexual relationships, but should not advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of polygyny?
I don't get the point of zixar's analogies either...
and Coolwaters, I don't know how you came up with the connection on pursuit of happiness, but I appreciate it, because it takes the matter back to the foundation of our society.
And as to the point regarding polygamy, I don't see polygamy inherently as something that should be subject to specific exclusion, but as with homosexuality, some of the related cultural manifestations are or may be highly undesirable.
Welfare fraud, closed societies with no accountability and high levels of personal intimidation, and child sexual exploitation are very real issues inherently tied to polygamist subcultures in northern Arizona and Utah.
If an appeal to equality and liberty should be sufficient for an agenda to obtain state recognition for homosexual "marriages," why should a numerical issue matter when it comes to polygyny?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Trefor Heywood
I think it is meant to be satirical ex - implying that the Catholic church is full of poofs...
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc.
They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not.
As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted.
Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws.
Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Ex: The point is that marriage has a traditional definition, with certain rules. Now, homosexuals want to redefine it to suit their wishes, regardless of how it has always been practiced. There have been many, many homosexual men who married women, either for appearance's sake, or to have children, or some other reason. There is currently no sexual-preference check in order to get a marriage license, but you do have to have one and only one of each gender to do so. There is no ban on homosexuals entering into marriage, they just can't do it with another person of the same gender. That's just how marriage works--like the priesthood. You want to be a priest? Fine. But you have to obey the rules, and one of those is that you must be celibate. Why should they have to make an exception because some people don't want to choose celibacy? There are other churches which do allow marriage of the clergy.
I've forgotten at the moment who was making the "democracy" argument for states voting on gay marriage one by one. That doesn't wash. Why? Well, what would have stopped the Southern states from re-instating slavery at the first general election after the Civil War?
We should address the secular inequity from gay/single vs. married, but only that. Anything more would build even more on the new state-sponsored religion--political correctness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
"cystic fibrosis or downs syndrome" ohmygosh what in the heck are you talking about M&A ?
**
i don't understand so much about religion and government and politics
**
i do know i sure as hell wouldn't want to be gay since there doesn't seem to be true liberty, justice, happiness for gay people
i still fight a prejudice and sometimes do not even realize it. it's like ingrained (sp?) in me
and as far as the priest crap and pedophile nonsense goes, i personally know pedophiles who like different sex children and same sex children
and i am really really disgusted when someone talks about homosexuals in the same breath
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
zix, i was posting while you were posting
what does a roman catholic church rule have to do with a citizens ?
are we talking church now ?
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
but 6er... I don't think your analogy holds... one is a set of rules for a particular religious sect that some may or may not want to belong to, the other is for society as a whole... and before you say "it's just for the homosexuals" it's not, it's for "people" wanting to share in the same societal and governmental benefits that everyone else does...
isn't it?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Abigail, I was serious in the first part, but I thought about some of the possible permutations we might see once the M/F requirement was lifted.
I think churches have always managed to certify and sanctify marriages according to their beliefs, and I don't think that should change. If you only believe in heterosexual marriage, get married in a church that believes likewise. If you are an Episcopalean, change churches.
Maybe this relates to Zixar's point - churches associate themselves around scriptural doctrines which do not change with "every wind." If the church has members who wish to change the rules, it must decide, as many have, whether it is a theocracy bound to scriptural edict, or a democracy bound to change with the trends. There is plenty of room for both, and nobody is preventing anybody else from joining or switching to the church that teaches what you want to hear.
I can understand the anger JL might harbor from his early experience, and how it translates into his current perspective. I think it's wrong though. He experienced what countless girls his age have experienced and come to expect from older men, and unlike them, he had considerable physical strength to defend himself. On the other hand, the girls may handle it a lot better than he has, emotionally speaking. (No offense, JL, but your conclusion - "if there weren't any it wouldn'a happened" - just sounds way over the top.) Girls have a lot more practice at fending off advances and so they are more resiliant. It's the guys who tend to be "girls" about it, so to speak.
M&A your anger seems a lot less focused. Maybe I missed it but you never explained why it is so heated. What happened?
My own problem with the various activist groups has more to do with their politics. They are fairly predictable when November rolls around. Since liberalism is on the surface more permissive, I can understand it, but some of the more radical groups are pretty hard to take. Act Up, for instance, is like a PETA for people.
I do believe the law should adapt. If a couple wishes to marry, there is a spiritual component provided by the organization they choose, and there is a legal component, provided by the state.
Where children are involved, if married couples receive tax deductions (they ain't much), then all couples with children should.
There will be additional costs, but there will be benefits as well, many intangible though palpable. Social stability for one. Marriage is a debt of faithfulness which makes one stop and consider more than just "#1."
There is a "marriage penalty" that probably more than offsets any deductions for kids (but I don't know), and everybody will have to pay it until Congress 86's it.
If a friend from work invited me to his or her "alternative" wedding, I would want to attend. I'd even be honored. I haven't forgotten the Judeo-Christian socio-theocratic prohibitions-by-fiat I once accepted. I no longer accept some of them. It's just about people, and the people I know are good people.
We've all adjusted our lives to the times, and in most ways, much for the better. We keep the commandments that need keeping. The others belong to the past, by most measures a darker age.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that's more where i'm coming from
it is about PEOPLE. i know everyone makes it about religion and political agenda, whatever. but what i myself am talking about is people deserving to be treated equally, you know ?
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah! people!
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
zix:
You seem to be making the argument that priestly celibacy is in some way an eternal truth that is set in stone.
It is in fact only a discipline of the western rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is subject to amendment at any time (although not under the current Pope). There are in fact married Catholic priests of other rites and some who were Anglican priests who came over are also married.
Yes, homosexuals have entered into heterosexual marriages for some of the reasons you stated, I even did so myself. Even when you make the argument that you can always go to another church that becomes difficult to apply unless you are suggesting that all homosexuals should desert the USA for Canada or other more progressive nations, which in itself creates all sorts of difficulties, and in any case why should a significant group of people have to be exiles from their own land?
The USA is not some institution that people can easily choose to leave for a competitor. It is not a theocracy run by celibate old men who do not allow decisions to be made by others.
It is "we the people" and gays are people. If it is truly the land or opportunity and equality, the beacon to the world that it is always proclaiming itself to be, then it has to acknowledge that a take it or leave it attitude will no longer wash. People have a right to make their voices known and heard. The fact that you might not like what they have to say is neither here nor there.
I have little time for "political correctness" myself. But I do have time for freedom and equality.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and another thing, i can't remember what was said about sheep and children
but that is so unbelievably mean and nasty. try to put yourself in foggie's daughter's shoes or tref's shoes or anybody else you love
and guess what, i'm no friggin saint. i've even made jokes about gay people. i'm trying to stop that. takes a while to get over years of brainmolding
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Oh, good grief! What is it with you people and analogies? All right, fine. Here's another one that's entirely secular, and government-based, to boot.
Scene: Outside an American Air Force base
GUARD
Good morning, sir. May I see your military ID?
MAN
I haven't got one.
GUARD
What is the nature of your visit today, then, sir?
MAN
Oh, I heard that you can buy things cheap at the BX, so I came to do some shopping.
GUARD
Sir, the base exchange only sells to active or retired military personnel.
MAN
Oh. You won't make an exception for me? I'm a citizen after all. I pay your salary, and the subsidy on that merchandise so you can buy it cheap at the BX!
GUARD
Military personnel only, sir.
MAN
Well, how do I become one, then?
GUARD
You could enlist, but...
MAN
But what?
GUARD
How old are you, sir?
MAN
60. What's it to you?
GUARD
I'm afraid that's too old to enlist.
MAN
Isn't that age discrimination?
GUARD
Well, can you run an 8-minute mile with a full backpack?
MAN
Not any more.
GUARD
Well, there you go.
MAN
So I can't shop at your store because I'm not military, and I can't join the military because I'm too old. That means I can't shop at your BX just because I'm too old? That certainly is ageist!
GUARD
Well, indirectly, that's correct.
MAN
There ought to be a law!
GUARD
As soon as they pass it, I'll defend it, sir. Until then, it's off to Wal-Mart with you.
MAN
I don't want to go to Wal-Mart! I want to shop at the BX! Since when did this become Nazi Germany?
GUARD
If this were Nazi Germany, I'd have shot you by now. Now please clear the gate area, sir.
MAN
(driving off)
I'll suuuuuue...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Trefor, thank you for the thoughtful response. But, that is our system, as flawed as it may be.
On the area of "rights:"
Homosexuals should undoubtedly have the same freedom of speech, press, and religion as heterosexuals.
Homosexuals should have the same right to bear arms as heterosexuals.
etc., etc., etc.
No state should be able to make laws that abridge those rights for anybody. On that point I'm sure we agree.
However, again, where is marriage defined as a "right." To my knowledge, it is nowhere. If it is not a right, the states can regulate it. They do so in statutory law and administrative regulation. As long as those laws and regulations do not violate somebody's constituional rights (not perceived rights, but those rights that are actually are enumerated in the US Constituion), they have the full authority to do so. In this country, we have a patchwork of marriage laws. In some states, both parties must be 18. In some, 17. There are even a couple where they can be as young as 14, with their parents' consent. In MD, the age is 18, 16 with parental consent, but if the female is pregnant, they can marry at 15 without parental consent (but, with a doctor's certificate that she is pregnant). That's the way it is. And, truly, that's the way it is supposed to be. Messy, but for a country this size and this diverse, that's the only way it can be.
If a legislature passes a law to change the criteria for issuing a marriage license and the governor signs that legislation, then so be it. But when a court intervenes and tells a legislature what laws it must pass, particularly when that legislature is not in violation of the US Constitution, and that ruling will impact all 50 states, then that is a major problem in my mind. The violation of process is a far bigger problem than the issue itself, to me.
Honestly, the best way to achieve your side's ends is through the constituional process. Amend the 15th Amendment to forbid discrimination based on sexual preference or actions, based upon that sexual preference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Well, depending upon your marital experience(s), I would think that marriage would be a "pursuit of happiness". So...
To me, that implies a right to marriage. But I'm no lawyer and I don't know how or even if the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with constitutional law.
?????????????
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
6er... yerowtherman... but I guess I'm too far behind... I still don't see what one has to do with the other... why don't you just say whatever it is that you're trying to communicate by way of parable???
or am I the only one who doesn't get it? (I am from Texas ya know, and old... so I need some help here)
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hey abi, i meant to thank you before for being confused too
:)--> mwah
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i didn't want to say anything tommy but i didn't get the new analogy either (sorry zix)
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That's sort of funny...A lot of fundamentalists (who know nothing about law)have tried to use that phrase as justification for outlawing abortion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Anyone care to argue why appeals to equality and liberty should advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of homosexual relationships, but should not advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of polygyny?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well the first thing that comes to mind is that homosexuals are not asking to marry a bunch of people ???????
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't get the point of zixar's analogies either...
and Coolwaters, I don't know how you came up with the connection on pursuit of happiness, but I appreciate it, because it takes the matter back to the foundation of our society.
And as to the point regarding polygamy, I don't see polygamy inherently as something that should be subject to specific exclusion, but as with homosexuality, some of the related cultural manifestations are or may be highly undesirable.
Welfare fraud, closed societies with no accountability and high levels of personal intimidation, and child sexual exploitation are very real issues inherently tied to polygamist subcultures in northern Arizona and Utah.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
If an appeal to equality and liberty should be sufficient for an agenda to obtain state recognition for homosexual "marriages," why should a numerical issue matter when it comes to polygyny?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
okay, well then regarding numerical issues, let's talk about equality and liberty and happiness.....
i don't think anyone should be allowed to get married....
just have stuff on the side like all good politicians
:)--> ha ha ha
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. what would constitute a sufficient appeal to equality and liberty ?
seriously
is this really a discussion about freedom or is it about religious beliefs ?
my god i'm trying to understand
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.