Nah......Wouldn't you rather dip the communion wafers in some of that Newman's Own Hot Salsa while watching the Texans play, sucking down some Communion wine while playing Black Sabbath tunes in the sanctuary of the local church? Bet the altar would make a great TV stand..... Turn a couple of crosses upside down as well. In the words of Tenacious D......."Hail Satan! Hail Satan!" And on the divorce thing.....I will definitely agree, we've made a bloody mess of that marriage thing for quite awhile. I have four aunts and uncles with at least three marriages a piece.
Actually it's "guys and girls" that are doing a good job at it. But I can see how you made that mistake.
You are right, this law would pre-empt states rights. The reason behind the law, however, is the fear that the courts will pre-empt everybody and make gay marriage a right. No, it hasn't happened in the US yet, but it has happened in Canada, and if you look at the sodomy ruling closely, you see a possible opening for a bad court decision.
Ms. JB, Thank you for being the only one I have seen that has addressed my points earlier in this and another thread. From what you are saying above, it appears that you would not have a problem with polygamy. Is that correct? I have no problem with gay marriage per se, but polygamy is where I really start to get nervous. I don't know what the effects on society would be exactly, but I don't think that its effect can really be discounted. There are maybe 0.5 percent of polygamists that want to be married now. I would think that post-legalization, if that lifestyle became accepted, there would be a higher percentage than what there is now. So for me, strangely, the gay marriage issue becomes an issue of polygamy. That's really bizarre but I hope my line of thinking is somewhat clear. One other thing. Please remember that marriage is right now legally defined as being between a man and a woman. That wasn't his opinion. And please don't make me agree with bama anymore.
I don't have a problem with it for several reasons: 1. It is between consenting adults 2. I can't see where it would cause harm to society at large 3. I believe, legal or not, the numbers of practicing polygamists would remain so small as to be nearly statistically insignificant I honestly don't believe that, if legalized, polygamist marriage would become widely practiced. Most of us seem to be hardwired to gravitate to one-on-one committed relationships. Although men might fantasize about having more than one wife, few would act on that impulse after really considering all the logistics of such a set up: finding willing partners, locating housing in a sympathetic community, making enough money to support all the wives and children and navigating the tricky emotion issues of these complex relationships. For women, the appeal of this type of relationship is virtually non-existent: financial support and help with housework/child care from the other wives are about as good as it gets, I guess. And as far as the reverse scenario, one wife/several husbands, I can't imagine any woman having the patience or stamina to endure that. There are still practicing polygamists (mostly for religious reasons) -- I assume they would be the main people taking advantage of this law. I have to believe that, among the rest of us, few harbor secret, burning desires to become polygamists just as soon as it's made legal. Honestly, this all strikes me as so strange to begin with. An entire argument against gay marriage predicated on the evil poygamists??? I can't count how many people I've heard say they have nothing against gays, but if we let them marry then we'll have to let the polygamists marry too. So no gay marriage. Huh?? It sounds like such a diversionary tactic. But if that's the argument, then I say let the polygamists marry. If they are the only thing standing between gay couples and the altar, then go ahead at let all the polygamists clamoring for that marriage license have it. In my eyes, it's a non-issue. P.S. It wasn't bama's legal man/woman defenition of marriage that I was disagreeing with. It was the assertion that anything else is a "sham." I don't believe romantic partnerships are any less valid if they don't take place between a man and a woman.
If one believes that amending the definition of marriage to allow two people of the same sex to be married will lead to allowing incest, polygamy and beastiality, how can one be in favor of civil unions? What is magical about the term "civil union" that would appease you enough to drop the fear of allowing incest, polygamy and beastiality?
Hinduism Pre-marital chastity ranks very high on the scale of values of most Hindus. There is strong religious and social pressure to control the senses, especially before marriage. In Hindu writings there is a marked emphasis on self-control with the sublimation of sexual urges before a person reaches the stage of the householder. There are punishments for transgressions. The Hindu literary sources are remarkably silent on homosexuality but from traditional attitudes towards chastity and sex it follows that homosexuality at any stage of life is out of line with the standard norms and values of the varnashramadharma system. In particular, not to marry and produce children could be seen as a violation of dharma ("righteousness"). Very few Hindus remain unmarried. Homosexuality is not unknown but it is a taboo topic. The reaction to AIDS in India has been even stronger pressure to remain chaste. Buddhism Traditional Buddhism identifies only two types of sexuality: that of celibate monks and nuns and that of married householders engaged in normal (heterosexual) family life. For this reason homosexual relationships may be seen as unwise or unnatural. Homosexual activity would seem to most Buddhists to break the third precept of Buddhism - refraining from the misuse of the senses. They certainly see any uncontrolled desire as potentially destructive and unwholesome and Buddhism has always taught that self-control and chastity are a high and wholesome path. Sexual misconduct is a cause for expulsion from the monastic communities. But Buddhists believe that there are no moral absolutes and that "right action" has to be worked out in whatever time, place and situation people find themselves. The spiritual leader of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, has categorised homosexual acts as "sexual misconduct" which is "something that may be considered improper in terms of organs, time, and place; when sexual relations involve inappropriate parts of the body, or when they occur at an unsuitable time or place." Sikhism Maintenance of family honour is a dominant concern in Sikhism and sexual misconduct brings shame on a family. Sexual activity is restricted to its responsible use within marriage. This is consistent with the reference to lust in the Sikh scriptures (the Guru Granth Sahib) where it is cited as one of the five evil passions. Sikhs have not written on the subject of homosexuality. Friendships in South Asian communities between members of the same sex are strong and in fact it is regarded as right and natural that only those of the same sex hold hands or embrace in public. But it would be totally incorrect for a Westerner to assume that physical contact between members of the same sex was indicative of any homosexual tendency. Sikhs expect every man and woman to marry and have children. For a woman there is no respected or desirable alternative to the role of wife and mother. Sexual activity for both sexes must be confined to members of the opposite sex and within marriage. According to Sikh belief, union with God is not possible while one is at the mercy of a wayward impulse. Any surrender to instincts incompatible with conjugal fidelity or with the proper role of men and women as marriage partners would be condemned. Judaism Marriage is considered by the rabbis to be the ideal state for any man and marriage is intended to imitate the relationship between Adam and Eve - one man and one woman - and for the fulfilment of the duty to have children. Under the Jewish system any sex outside of marriage is, strictly speaking, impossible to achieve since having sex is one of the three stages of marriage. By having sex with a partner one has already embarked on the marriage process. There appears to be nothing in Jewish sources which recognises that people may be homosexual, only that they indulge in homosexual practices. The most influential text is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not lie with men as with women; it is an abomination", and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; and they shall certainly be put to death." The Talmud, which was written over a period of a thousand years and completed in the sixth century, considers whether or not two men should be alone together but decides that it is acceptable because "Jews do not behave in such a way". Interestingly, by the sixteenth century and the writing of the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Joseph Caro advises that, owing to current standards of behaviour amongst some people, it would be wise for two men not to be alone together. Jeffrey Satinover, himself a Jew, notes: "On the basis of the Pentateuch, the Talmud treats all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, unequivocally as sins, though it makes careful distinctions concerning their varying severity. Lesbianism, for example is treated as a less severe sin than male homosexuality; the various Talmudic discussions concerning lesbianism view it as less of a threat to family formation and stability than the always potentially rogue male sexuality." "Thus Rabbinic discussions of homosexuality begin with the fact of its sinfulness and moral unacceptability but quickly make two important points. First, as in all matters pertaining to human failings, a strict distinction must be maintained between the sin and the person... Second, the Rabbinic discussions make a refined distinction as to the degree of culpability that individuals bear for their homosexual behaviour, depending on the situation." Islam Excess in sexual relations is one of the root vices identified by Islam. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate physical union between a man and a woman to express their love and commitment to each other. The result of sexual intercourse, procreation, is the contribution which human beings make towards the continuation of God's creation. Islam prohibits sex outside marriage. Marriage - which can only be between a man and a woman - is the place within which both the emotional and creative power of sexual intercourse can be controlled. Islam holds that when there is excess or deficiency in the desire for sexual intercourse an imbalance can occur in the personality. Excess overpowers reason and leads to adultery, fornication and other mortal sins. Islam forbids homosexual and lesbian relations. Islam views such relations as unnatural and a deviation from the norm. Specific mention is made of its practice in the Quran where Lot warns against the practice of homosexuality: "What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84). Sodomy is considered to be an act against one's natural disposition ('asl-al-fitra) because it is considered to be sex merely to satisfy one's passion and performed with part of the body for which sexual intercourse was not created. It also includes anal sex with one's wife. All Muslim jurists agree that sodomy is a sexual offence though they differ as to its appropriate punishment
I just think a lot of people on BOTH sides of this argument do not think about all the ramifications. So many people that support gay marriages just say so becuase it's 'their business - it's between those two'. I sympathize with that, but if it's just between two people, why not eliminate the government entirely from marriage? Marriage obviously has a societal impact through children, culture, etc. On the other hand, many that oppose gay marriage do so due to homophobia. I do appreciate and respect your position as going beyond the surface more than most, and your argument has logic, even if I have trouble accepting some of the minor points. In the earlier gay marriage thread, I was getting to the point of saying that gay marriage and polygamy should be allowed, although my arguments about polygamy were overshadowing the gay marriage part. About your specific points about polygamy being a non-issue, I don't necessarily agree. I don't think it would exceed the levels of what gay marriages would be, and I don't think that it would be the downfall of society. But I do think that there would be a definite impact. I think it's ironic that you say that that people are hard-wired to one-on-one relationships, because isn't that eerily similar to the arguments of whether or not being gay is genetic or societal? How many married men have had mistresses? I know a few people that have been in more than one relationship at one time, and ones that have been 'in love' with more than one person at one time. There won't be an overnight change where a million people try to get married, but over time there will be a segment of the population that gets into those types of relationships. If you have any reason why you don't think a court would find that disallowing gay marriages is wrong, what would prevent them from finding the same for a polygamous or incestuous (w/ a sterile couple) marriage, please tell me. That would wrap things up nicely for me and I would have little reservation supporting gay marriage being legally adopted. I would welcome that. Re: bama's comment - I took his statement to mean that legal marriages (like in Texas) are between a man and a woman. He would be correct then because calling homosexuals married would be a falsehood (currently). If he meant that gay people are incapable of maintaining a loving, stable, committed relationship, then he is wrong. Given his earlier statements about the ceremony he participated in, I took his statements to mean the former.
Hey, you can have your definition of marriage...no sweat. I'm just saying the government can't. The govt can only define "couples" for very practical reasons of supporting family units. If the govt is going to use tax payor money to give out to families, and reward family units, then we as citizen get to define how the govt is supposed to view what a couple, a family is. The best way to do that is to allow couples to announce themselves as couples and define their own family by filling out legal paper work. Look: if you raise kids you have to right to share that burden with one other person and legally reap the same benefits as everyone else who takes on that family burden. If a cruel husband drives a wife to lesbianism, she has the right to claim custody of the child and go get another person to fill the second parent void. I'm talking about the definition of marriage can still be as sacred as we all want, but that definition is not definable by a govt who taxes everyone and redistributes that money and sets special Family Laws based on a static definition of family. CASE CLOSED!
Pardon my brief interruption. It seems this conversation well passed me by after I left the office and, from the looks of it, I probably don't want back in. But, I just wanted to conclude with HP real quick. Heypee, you're probably right. I'm motivated by the fact that modern marriage makes so little sense, with a lack of longevity, definition, sanctity, or even coordination between it and child-rearing. But, you do make a valid point about our need for it, nevertheless. It makes me feel though that some very significant change needs to be made to bring the social practice and the legal adminsitration into line with one another. OK, continue to bash one another.
I don't think I made the claim that they did.... Name a source of love, how we know about it, if its not God...
Bama I think you were wrong in saying that those civilations were not set in a moral system. It was a different moral system, but it was still a moral system, which only reaffirms your first point.
I was making the argument Russell makes, that I don't agree with, sure... But, I think reason can lead you to have a higher percentage of faith for believing in God.... Take it back to the start... CAtholics believe in the big bang, however, we also believe that God was behind it. Something had to be there to make the thing that went bang. We call that thing God, the unmoved first mover. Take it scientifically, quarks seem to be the smallest thing scientists have been able to find, however, quarks are made out of something as well, and if you keep reducing that thing ad infinitum. At some point it has to stop and something has to hold everything together.... I remember one of my friends who was a bio major got all excited about this article he read in which scientists were amazed at the almost supernatural forces that were holding quarks together.... Take all that coupled with Jesus Christ and I have reason to believe in God. Of course I cannot prove him, but my reason tells me there is more than likely a God....
This is the part of the argument I despise. Relativism leads us all to mediocrity. We should respect others ideas but that damn sure doesn't mean we agree with them. There are different perspectives on truth, but there is one truth. REspect allows for intelligent discourse on the matter rather than just saying to hell with it believe whatever you want to. I think its the greatest modern day fallicy out there.
Don't say TOLERANCE.... its not the same thing!!! ERGHHH!!!! Sorry I just got finished taking a whole class on the problems with the modern idea of tolerance. Its such a despicable word. Tolerance would mean that you would have to say all my views are correct, which I know you don't want to say.... .... Respect my views, but don't agree with them if you don't agree with them!
Ok, I'll brush aside the Body of Christ comments to say. A) I'm not post padding just catching up on the discussion B) This country simply doesn't understand marriage anymore, its pathetic on both sides, people don't stop and examine what love is or if they are in it. Love has become something totally selfish these days. There is no giving anymore of one's self for their spouse and for God. People are messing up a lot, and its because people like me are being tolerant instead of preaching what we think is right... thats one of the reasons I get so bombastic on here I'm just concerned... I mean I could care less if the topic is the War, or gays, every thread is pretty much going to come down to religion for me, because I think people could do better and I think people are being exposed to crappy takes on the truth and what religion and faith really is.... Outlaw I wish you would pick up that Thomas Aquaman book, I think you would find it incredible...
You can't really draw the line because marriage and church ceremonies are in line with each other, and it would anull the marriages that have already been done in both civil and religious ceremonies. Also, I don't think children should be raised in a gay home, simply because I also think that they shouldn't be raised by single parents. Before everyone flys off the handle on that comment; let me make sense of it. I defend the family, as shown to me by the holy family, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... I don't think divorce is a good thing, its horrible, and is the result of people not correctly understanding marriage before they get into one. Kids need a mom and a dad. ITs just best for them... That said, I do think that there can be succesful (as in happy, not killing people going on murderous sex driven rampages) people who come from broken homes... however, I don't think that we should strive for a broken home... we should struggle for good families...
