Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God is righteousness. God does not love what is evil in His sight.
Chris
Well, I hate to get into a God debate here, but the following needs to be said. One thing that is for sure (and documented) is that the bible does talk about crossdressing.
Deuteronomy 22:5 (King James Version)
Quote:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
God also likes to "test" people by telling them to kill their children.
God telling Abraham to kill his son Isaac Gen 22:1-14 KJV And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. [v. 2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
My point is that true spirituality does not come from religious dogma. It comes from within. Only those that are weak-in-spirit need a "guide book" to help them do and know what is right. This is why the weak-in-spirit are fooled by verses in the bible that clearly came from "the other side" and NOT from "God". Make no mistake about it; the viewpoint of both sides (good and evil) are in the bible. Only those that know the true light can see the difference.
Valid, we can assume that for some reason or other there was a lack of importance seen to writing a will. This could have solved the second issue, the first issue - no. Therefore, using your wording, a change in the laws of marriage was needed and appropriate in this instance because one of these issues was not fixed.
But there is a fallacy in your logic. Using your steps, Intestacy laws should not exist in the first place. No change in laws was appropriate because people should have prepared themselves.
How about the protection of the rights of the accused. The simple act of obeying the law would have solved the problem (this applies to everyone). Because this was not done, the logical presumption (Occam's razor) is that the accused did not consider the law to be important, unless he was completely ignorant. Again, no change in the laws was needed or appropriate in this instance.
There are still a number of reasons why a will could not have been written, and it happens all of the time. We have laws in place to protect people if they have issues like this occur. My relative was not given this protection because his partnership is not acknowledged legally and this should be corrected.
The will to re-define marriage opens up several interesting possibilities.
For example, will one be permitted to marry one's own adult child in order to compel a corporate employer to provide medical insurance to the child after his or her 26'th birthday?
Also . . . Animals have been recognized as having property rights through a trustee. You know, "woman leaves $10 million to her cat." A person of more modest means might like to marry the cat in order to compel Social Security and corporate pension managers to provide the cat with a survivor's benefit. I personally feel a strong moral instinct to protect domestic animals, as do many other people. (Note: the Episcopal Church already blesses animals. I know. I am one. errr, Episcopalian, I mean, not animal.)
The will to re-define marriage opens up several interesting possibilities.
For example, will one be permitted to marry one's own adult child in order to compel a corporate employer to provide medical insurance to the child after his or her 26'th birthday?
Also . . . Animals have been recognized as having property rights through a trustee. You know, "woman leaves $10 million to her cat." A person of more modest means might like to marry the cat in order to compel Social Security and corporate pension managers to provide the cat with a survivor's benefit. I personally feel a strong moral instinct to protect domestic animals, as do many other people. (Note: the Episcopal Church already blesses animals. I know. I am one. errr, Episcopalian, I mean, not animal.)
I hate this argument because it doesn't take into account basic logic. The flaw in your retort is that legalizing gay marriage does not equate to legalizing something that is currently illegal. Legalizing gay marriage extends a civil right. Even if it was not allowed ANYWHERE, being gay and being with someone of your own sex would still be LEGAL.
Permitting an incestuous relationship or bestiality would first have to have those acts be legalized, then talk about marriage, so these things are not equivalent.
A similar argument would be like saying that freedom of religion would allow me to worship my I have to kill people religion, where....I have to kill people.
I agree. That's not the point, though, is it? If the transfer of wealth had been an important consideration, the simple act of writing a valid will would have solved the problem (this applies to everyone). Because this was not done, the logical presumption (Occam's razor) is that the deceased did not consider this to be important, unless he was completely ignorant. Again, no change in the laws of marriage was needed or appropriate in this instance.
YOU are the one making "assumptions" about the state of mind of someone you've never met. MANY people, hetero- and homo- (or single people, for that matter) "never get around to" filing a will, or cannot afford to do so with a lawyer. ANd, in many cases, same-sex couples who DO file valid wills have had them challenged (successfully) by blood relatives of the deceased with more powerful lawyers.
Also, there are tax-related issue about a legal spouse that don't apply even if someone does have a valid will. I think that a legal spouse is not subject to inheritance tax, no matter what the amount, for example. At any rate, it's "automatic" if the relationship is recognized legally and open to any manner of loopholes is a will, even a fairly rock-solid one, is in place. There was a well-publicized case in Nebraska a cople of years ago where a longterm couple HAD a will, lived together and owned property together for decades, but when one died, it turned out the lawyer had not gotten the correct number of witnesses and the will was deemed invalid. The surviving partner lost EVERYTHING to the "family" of the deceased (who had had no contact with their "loved one in years) and was made homeless, even after believing everything was taken care of in a will.
Probate, challenges, etc can keep a person's own possessions (if owned 50-50 with the deceased) tied up for months or years, while with a legal spouse, generally it would be automatic.
And never mind the issue of Social Security: let's say John and Jack are a couple and Jim and Jane are a couple. They have both been together for 30 years and have similar incomes. They've been paying the same amount into SS all those years, living the same kind of relationship with their spouse/partner. Let's say Jim and Jane have no children. Jim dies, Jane gets survivor's benefits from Jim's SS fund. John dies, Jack gets diddly-squat, even though he is "widowed" in every way but legally from the death of a 30-year lifepartner. For that matter, Jim could have married Jane 30 DAYS previously, instead of 30 years, and she is still eligible. Even where "domestic partnerships" are legal in some states, Federal benefits such as SS do not apply.
Say what you want about the religious aspects of marriage, but as long as financial benefits are tied to being "legally married", it is an injustice when part of the population does not have access to this civil contract. I personally don't care if it is called "marriage", since many have a problem with the word, but the exact equal benefits at every level should be available to loving, committed partnerships.
However, none of this is relevant to the current bill because same-sex marraige is already illegal and that will not change, no matter what happens to this bill.
Permitting an incestuous relationship or bestiality would first have to have those acts be legalized, then talk about marriage, so these things are not equivalent.
Good grief. I don't think they are equivalent. But the thought seems to have crossed your mind. Do you think they are equivalent? There is no element of bestiality or incest implied; marriage doesn't mean that -- simply a legal arrangement to extend benefits to disenfranchised, offended parties. Moreover, several posters here have argued that my concept of morality or your concept of morality be damned.
So then -- what about polygamy? Phooey with the morality aspect. Say a Corporate Warrior Woman wants to pick up an extra hubby or two. Why not? Or a maybe a Frenchman-American wants benefits for his paramour.
Well, I'm losing interest now, so this will be my last post on the subject. But I have enjoyed chatting with you.
So murder, theft, rape, etc are ok with you? These are all moral values.
All of those invole harm of another person or property. Two people loving each other causes no harm to anyone and in fact is a benefit in msot people's eyes.
Quote:
Another fallacy from the Gay community. As someone who is gay, you have all the same civil rights as anyone else.
Not really--people can be and are fired from jobs they are performing well, for no other reason than that they are gay. And don't say "well, they should keep it to themselves" because in many cases, they didn't even "come out"; they were "ratted out" or in some cases simply presumed to be gay with no "evidence" at all. The military is a prime example of where you can still be fired from a job you're performing wonderfully, and "don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a fallacy, since many of those fired did not "tell", rather, they were set up in sting operations, or someone read something on their computer, etc. Check the cases in DADT, you'd be amazed. At any rate, a gay soldier doesn't have the same rights as a nongay one. What about the right to kiss your loved one as you're getting on the plane to be deployed? Or the right to put up picttres of your loved one at work (in any profession) with no worry of endengerment of job?
Quote:
You don't, however, just like EVERYONE ELSE, have the right to engage in immoral behaviour.
Loving a person is not immoral, that's what you refuse to understand. And as I've said before, if specific "sex acts" are what you are deeming immoral, please cite one thing two men do together that a man and woman can not (and do not) do together? If you consider "X act" to be immoral and that those who practice it should not get married, then you've got a lot of bedrooms across the USA to police.
Quote:
Again, being gay is not equivalent to being black, hispanic, a woman, etc.
NONE of these is equalivalent to each other. Each group suffers discimination but each also has its own particular "issues". Ask someone who belongs to more than one of these groups about that and they can speak volumes. A black woman may experience sexism from black men and racism by white women. A black gay man can experience racism from gay people and homophobia from black people, in additional to the "double dose" discrimination he gets from those who are both racist and homophobic. Demographic discrimination is not a "one-up" game; it's wrong in all cases where a person is being (pre-)judged on a characteristic unrelated to the issue at hand.
Quote:
These two things are not equivalent. There is nothing immoral about interracial marriage. Gay marriage, however, is immoral.
YOUR opinion says gay marriage is immoral. Manyopinions don't. but guess what? Many people still say interracial marriage is immoral. They will swear to their dying day, and that's in 2011. The number with that belief back in the 1950s was not only much higher, it was a majority. So whose opinion counts here? You say one kind of immoral and the other isn't; others say both are, and others say neither one is. That's the trouble wi9th living in a free country and not a theocracy; ONE person doesn't get to say what's "moral" or "immoral" and have it codifed for everyone. I suggest you move to the Middle East if you want to be in a place where the Holy Book is law and homosexuality is a criminal (often capital) offense. It sounds like you'd be much happier there. But in the meantime, you'll have to deal with the fact that you live in a country where one person's Holy Book does not hold any power over those who don't share those religious beliefs, sorry.
These two things are not equivalent. There is nothing immoral about interracial marriage. Gay marriage, however, is immoral.More fallacious ad hominen.No, we don't.
Chris
According to your religion, maybe. Since we have religious freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and since you have stated yourself that we can't make laws that prohibit religious freedom, and we've already stated that we cannot legislate based on religion...
If gay people start a church, then they can get married in it.
And nobody can deny them the same rights as any other married couples.
Fact is, marriage is murky when you mix in the religious aspect. Why not let everyone procure a civil marriage, then let those who wish to do so get married in whatever church will marry them. Those that don't can choose not to, and still be married in a civil sense... this would entitle them to the same benefits as any other married couple.
This would be fully in line with the Constitution.
And you'd better believe there was a time not so long ago that plenty of people in this state thought it was immoral for the races to mix.
Equated it to bestiality, same as they do with homosexuality now.
It's not a lifestyle, it's just how some people are born.
And even if there are some who CHOOSE to be gay, they're not hurting anyone who isn't.
Period.
I'd rather get my nose out of other people's relationships... gay people have the right to be as happy or as miserable in a marriage as heterosexual people.
When we get the divorce rate down to less than oh... 10% in heterosexual couples, then folks can preach about the virtues of one man/one woman.
*shakes head*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
