Same Sex Marriage supporters: Do you support Polygamy? (Obama, March, abortion)
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.
Look at what it has done to countries like Sweden, where gay marriage had rendered the word "marriage" meaningless, and people dont even bother getting married anymore.
I never thought I would see the day that a traditional marriage between gays would become acceptable either. Yes, it is opening a Pandora's Box.
That is said every time a new group gets rights in the US. It's complete BS.
The Irish, Germans, Catholics, Jews, blacks, inter-racial couples...and it has yet to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Look at what it has done to countries like Sweden, where gay marriage had rendered the word "marriage" meaningless, and people dont even bother getting married anymore.
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
You're comparing apples to oranges here and creating a strawman argument. I will just say that if one believes in the Bible they know the difference.
Your bible isn't the supreme law of the land. The constitution is.
Here is what the constitution says:
Quote:
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If you approve of gay marriage then you would have to approve of polygamy. And why stop there what happens if someone wants to marry their pet. You may laugh about it but your opening up a pandora box.
How is polygamy related to gay marriage? It's between one man and multiple females. How is it related to 'marry with a pet' where there is no way to have a consensual relationship? It isn't. Anymore than the argument about incest ... if that were so, we would already accept marriage between father/daughter or mother/son ... ~!
Committed homosexual relationships already exist and do not interfere or effect the general public. All that is being decided it to 'legalize' it so that they can obtain the same rights as any other couple in regards to taxes, inheritances, medical decisions, property, etc. Heterosexual couples can chose to 'legalize' their union or not ... the same right should be available to same sex couples in committed relationships.
You're comparing apples to oranges here and creating a strawman argument. I will just say that if one believes in the Bible they know the difference.
Need to quote myself here because people don't seem to get it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
People shouldn't remove it, they should just ignore it like most Christians do with parts of the bible that they don't like. Even fundy loons that have decided that the bible is word for word laid out by god don't, and Leviticus is one of the most ignored.
People cite that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus, then ignore that it also prescribes against:
- Wearing clothes of different weaves of fiber (Leviticus 19:19),
- Eating fat (Leviticus 3:17),
- Clipping your hair/beard (Leviticus 19:27),
- Getting a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28),
- Blasphemy, and those that do should be put to death (Leviticus 24:14-16,23)
- Consuming blood or rare meat (Leviticus 17:10) - Especially relevant since black pudding is traditional Irish fare
If you add into the mix Deuteronomy, then it gets worse:
- If a woman lies about her virginity she is to die (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
- Being a victim of rape in the city (not a field) (Deuteronomy 22:23-27)
- Trying to convert people to another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20)
- Apostasy - Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
- Stoning an unruly child (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
- Ignoring the verdict of a judge (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
This is kindergarten level theology. No one believes the bible is the actual word by word telling of gods will that hasn't changed in 2,000 years. If they did then people would follow all of these crazy laws, because the one thing Jesus championed more then helping the poor is his disdain for people who claim to love him and don't follow his word.
I have actually studied the bible and went to seminary. I didn't just pretend not to see the parts of the bible I thought were wrong.
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer;28871484[URL="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/marriage-rates-and-the-defense.html"
60% of Swedish couples marry before they are 40[/url], that is not 0%.
Is this all anti-gay marriage folks have is lies and BS? It's sad.
I didn't say anything about 0%. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Sweden has very low rate of marriage, and that is a fact.
There were 32,000 marriages in Sweden in 1997; in the early 1940s there was an annual average of 63,000. In 1997 Sweden had a population of almost 9 million; in the early 1940s barely 6.5 million. This translates into a 1997 marriage rate of 3.6 per 1,000 population; for the early 1940s a rate of 9.6 per 1,000. In recent years the U.S. rate has been around 9 per 1,000 population. That's two and half times the Swedish rate. No country in the world with adequate marriage statistics has ever reported a marriage rate as low as 3.6 per 1,000 population.
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.
