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.
Many religions allow for multiple husbands/wives. To recognize one religious marriage but not another could be construed as making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Look, I don't know what the little man behind the curtain does, but when you get married in a church, they send documents off to the state and certify the marriage.
Nothing unconstitutional about it. Nothing in the structure of, say, a Christian marriage runs afoul of laws regarding Civil Unions. Bigomy DOES run afoul of laws regarding Civil Unions, so there's a problem...
Those societies were certainly right about things like the shape of the earth and their stance on keeping other humans as slaves. Clearly, they are infallible.
Teaching lies as truth =/= good for society
Slavery was not universal among cultures like marriage between men and women. Also there are facts and there are myths the Earth being round can be proven. Gay marriage being argued as some benefit to society is not a fact.
FYI, Aristotle knew the Earth was round thousands of years before Columbus. So the Columbus tale of him proving the Earth was round by his voyage is in fact a tale.
I personally don't consider marriage important. Its just a title to me and people make a big deal out of it for no reason. The only reason I can see for marriage is just for the financial reasons.
Thing is that there is no "fail" in the slippery slope argument here.
IF we are to take the legal argument for gay marriage at face value, there is no way marriage could survive a legal challenge from one wanting to marry a close relative (as an example)...
Take emotion out of it and simply look at the legal aspect. There IS a slippery slope.
The question becomes, if marriage between members of the same sex is correct, why is marriage between members of the opposite sex also correct?
What is the objective standard which applies to both cases such that marriage between two, and only two, persons of either sex is correct but no other variations are allowed?
Those societies were certainly right about things like the shape of the earth and their stance on keeping other humans as slaves. Clearly, they are infallible.
Slavery was not universal among cultures like marriage between men and women. Also there are facts and there are myths the Earth being round can be proven. Gay marriage being argued as some benefit to society is not a fact.
FYI, Aristotle knew the Earth was round thousands of years before Columbus. So the Columbus tale of him proving the Earth was round by his voyage is in fact a tale.
Yes. It was known in Aristotle's time that the earth was round. A Greek mathematician, Eratosthenes, calculated the earth's circumference in about 250 BC by using shadows of an obelisk at Alexandria and a well at Seyene.
The societies that most directly lead to ours most certainly believed that the earth was flat and that slavery was okey-dokey, also that the earth was the center of the universe.
We can certainly do better than they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
What is infallible about our society?
Obviously, nothing. Our society is mostly full of ****.
The question becomes, if marriage between members of the same sex is correct, why is marriage between members of the opposite sex also correct?
What is the objective standard which applies to both cases such that marriage between two, and only two, persons of either sex is correct but no other variations are allowed?
And that's where, legally, one starts to slide down that slippery slope...
What is the defining factor that allows gays to become the exception to marriage law as it currently stands?
And is that factor unique to homosexuals as opposed to incestual type relations (again, as an example).
I thought that is all homosexuals were asking for: civil unions. Marriage is a religious ceremony/joining together performed by a religious organization who, based on their beliefs, has the right to not perform a marriage.
For me, my marriage in a church did not afford me any governmental rights. I had to back it up with a license at the courthouse. The state did recognize my religious officiant. If I didn't have one of those, a judge would have done it. But I guess not if I was entering into a same-sex marriage.
Gay civil unions have nothing to do with legal rights and government benefits. The gay police say that's what its about but the reality is gay civil unions will never do for gays what they want most. Gays want respectability. They want the same recognition of their unnatural relationships that heterosexuals obtain for their natural relationships by walking down the aisle. They believe by co-opting the word marriage and the marriage ceremony they can take for themselves the respectability that comes with it.
And that's where, legally, one starts to slide down that slippery slope...
What is the defining factor that allows gays to become the exception to marriage law as it currently stands?
And is that factor unique to homosexuals as opposed to incestual type relations (again, as an example).
Then we have to find a reason why marriage is limited to just two people. Is there an objective reason two is the correct number but not three?
If so, what is it such that three is wrong but same-sex is correct?
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.
