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.
That's fine. Your morality is your business and you are welcome to it. However, infringing on the rights of *others* based on YOUR morality is wrong. Before we start going down the "marriage is not a right" path, yet again, go read the SCOTUS decision on Loving v. Virginia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
That sure sounds like you're making a moral judgment on me.
Could you point out the "moral judgment" in the above? Because, frankly, I don't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
I'll repeat what I said.
Is there a valid reason to not allow such marriages to pass outside of religion?
Appeal to tradition=/=valid reason.
You have yet to respond to this without using religious convictions and appeal to tradition.
Anything that comes from a straight family unit can come from a homosexual family unit, close relation (parent-wise) family unit, or multiple spouse family unit.
Morality is relative, and different for every person, therefore irrelevant.
So, do you have any logical case against disallowing such marriages to pass, that do not involve morality or use of the appeal to tradition logical fallacy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
As I said, I think it's better for government to promote strong marriages, not weaken them.
And just how would allowing same sex marriage "weaken" marriage, in your opinion? I can't imagine my marriage of almost 30 years being "weakened" by anything other than what my spouse and I might have done within that marriage.
As I said, I think it's better for government to promote strong marriages, not weaken them.
I'm sorry but this and your previous post on morality reminded me of this...
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
- Adolf Hitler
Thus they should approve of incest, poly, and homosexual marriages.
As nothing has proven that these marriages are any weaker than straight marriages.
Thanks for agreeing.
I believe that would weaken the institution of marriage. There may be more marriages...but overall it would be watered down. You ever drink from Mom and Dad's whiskey bottle when you were a teenager and add water to make it look like you hadn't? Same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I'm sorry but this and your previous post on morality reminded me of this...
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
- Adolf Hitler
It's a shame that he didnt' believe a word of that, isn't it?
Ultimately, I believe it is immoral--so my convictions require that I not be supportive of it. That's just the way it is. You may disagree--that's fine. I won't scream and call you names, I request the same courtesy from you.
Having said that, I think traditionally marriage as a precursor to procreation and the family unit is a very good thing. I don't know that declaring that anything can be called marriage or anything is a family unit is going to really accomplish the same thing. Again...that's just the way I feel on it. I haven't seen anything to persuade me differently.
So what if it's immoral. That is irrelevant, for you would not be the one partaking in the action you think is immoral! Your argument = null and void.
I believe that would weaken the institution of marriage. There may be more marriages...but overall it would be watered down. You ever drink from Mom and Dad's whiskey bottle when you were a teenager and add water to make it look like you hadn't? Same thing.
No, it's not. It's like having a 1 liter bottle of whiskey as opposed to a pint.
Watering it down would be like getting married, divorced, and married again all within a few months span.
Accepting perversion only leads to more perversion demanding to be accepted.
Oh are you the authority on perversion? this is what cracks me up how people throw around words and definitions like their way of believing is the one and only truth.
If the criteria is that any two people who love each other and are consenting adults can marry then there is no logical reason the above couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Why did you establish that criteria? Why does it have to be two people? Why not allow plural marriage? And why not allow people to marry their pets?
...And why not allow people to marry their pets?...
<SIGH> Will people ever stop using this ridiculous strawman?
People might be allowed to marry their pets after pets obtain the ability to legally enter into a contract. Can Fido sign a lease or get a loan? No? There's your answer.
That scenario is absurd in the extreme and has no bearing on TWO ADULTS consenting to enter a legally binding "marriage".
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.
