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.
There's sexual fidelity requirements on marriage??? I'll concede it's the norm, but I assure you there are millions of married couples who are consensually non-monagamous, and they are not violating any laws. Traditions, perhaps, but not laws.
I know this because I'm one of them. Incidentally, one of the more popular occupation of my fellow hedonists seems to be law enforcement officer. Not sure why such a lifestyle is so popular amongst cops, but it is.
Twenty-four states have criminal statutes prohibiting adultery, and you can be sure provable adultery will be addressed in any civil divorce proceeding regardless of criminal law.
I really hesitate to continue commenting in this threaf. Those waho support gay marriage are being really rude, name calling and more. It does your argument no good when you have to stoop to such things.
Even without the religious component, itis my belief that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. No evidence has been given that proves otherwise. The interracial argument won't wash because that restriction was about race, not sex. I greatly oppose redefining marriage. I am for redefining civil unions so that gay couples have the full rights that are afforded to married couples.
The definition of marriage was changed when the racial component changed. The definition of marriage changed when the woman was no longer considered property of her husband or legally beatable. Just because the definition of marriage in your mind hasn't changed on the issue of sex doesn't mean the definition of marriage hasn't already changed multiple times.
Twenty-four states have criminal statutes prohibiting adultery, and you can be sure provable adultery will be addressed in any civil divorce proceeding regardless of criminal law.
Overturned (whether or not they're still technically "on the books") by Lawrence v. Texas. Nonetheless, consensual acts within a marriage are not adultery.
First, let me say I'm neutral on this matter, I don't oppose neither support same-sex marriage (SSM) on any emotional or rational basis, but I still have some issues with the pervasive use of logical fallacies spewed on this debate.
One of the them is claiming that not recognizing SSM means in some way "denying" rights to gay people. Hey, SSM is not necessarily a "homosexual" issue. I, as an straight guy could use it to marry an American man to obtain automatic citizenship, so it may perfectly apply to both homos and heterosexuals.
This is true, but it doesn't negate the denial of rights to homosexuals because another denied group is added in.
Quote:
Second, It is fallacious to equal SSM to interracial marriage (IRM). I don't think it has to be an insult to compare them both as there are indeed parallels between them, YET the traditional concensus has always been that marriage is an institution consecrated between a man and a woman, therefore denying that right to be held between persons of different races/ethnicities is indeed and act of discrimination. If we want to argue that gay people are being denied a right by refusing to redefine the definition of marriage, the same could be said of polyamorists, adult incestors, or people who are already married to others.
Traditional consensus= dominate groups consensus on a subject. Homosexual marriages have taken place historically albeit in limited numbers because homosexuals have always been a minority group. It isn't a redefinition of marriage at all in the sense that marriage was one thing but now it's another. The overall definition was to be married to who you choose, the dominate group's consensus was what governed the denial of minority group status ( including gays and inter- racial relationships), not marriage qua contract.
Quote:
I'm all for same rights for everyone and against special rights for a few. The one thing that disturbs me about some rabid gay activist (note I'm no saying ALL gay activists, let alone all gays altogether) is that they seem to scream more for the later than the former and whoever doesn't fully agree with their demands is instantly labeled a bigot and almost forced to shut up and stay out of the debate, the same intolerance they claim to be victims of.
The are mostly called bigots because there isn't a secular reason or really a legitimate secular reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. It could be the benign bigotry of ignorance but it's still bigotry. When arguments like the parallel to inter racial marriage, or the addition that marriage must be for procreation are used then they are quite rightly thrown out of the debate, because there isn't a debate to be had in a secular sense.
Twenty-four states have criminal statutes prohibiting adultery, and you can be sure provable adultery will be addressed in any civil divorce proceeding regardless of criminal law.
Not in MY state. Washington is a "no fault divorce" state. Adultery has no place in the divorce proceedings and has no bearing of any kind on the settlement or child visitation or anything else.
When was the last time anyone was prosecuted for adultery? In any state?
I really hesitate to continue commenting in this threaf. Those waho support gay marriage are being really rude, name calling and more. It does your argument no good when you have to stoop to such things.
Even without the religious component, itis my belief that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. No evidence has been given that proves otherwise. The interracial argument won't wash because that restriction was about race, not sex. I greatly oppose redefining marriage. I am for redefining civil unions so that gay couples have the full rights that are afforded to married couples.
I personally haven't called you (or anyone else) hurtful names, but you're right in that it does nothing to help the argument. Regardless, your debates are simply weak and based on nothing but religious beliefs - poorly interpreted and misunderstood beliefs, nonetheless. And I think MOST people are in agreement that religion doesn't belong in government, thus it has no place in defining marriage. While you can get married in a church/temple/etc, it's not required or legally binding without governmental laws.
And not to be rude, but I don't think anyone cares what YOU think is the definition of marriage. You have the right to think these things, but again it shouldn't have any bearing on the laws. Everyone has their personal beliefs and definitions, but it's up to the government/courts to determine what is legally just... and these decisions are constantly changing, so the argument "that's how it's always been" really doesn't fly. Minorities and women used to be denied equal rights by the government, and marriage used to be about human ownership & property, but our society evolved and overturned these regulations - as we eventually will in terms of gay marriage. Sorry, but that's how things go in a civilized nation.
Within 4 or 5 blocks of my house are two major religious congregations: St. Francis De Sales Roman Catholic Church and Congregation Kol Tzedek Synagogue.
The priest at the Catholic church will not marry two people of the same sex; it goes against the teachings of it's parent authority, the Vatican.
The rabbi at the Jewish synagogue will marry two people of the same sex; it is in accordance with the doctrines of it's parent authority, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation.
Here are my points:
Does the dogma of one religion trump the dogma of another religion?
Does the Catholic couple have the right to enjoy greater legal respect and privilege over the Jewish couple?
Why are opponents of same sex marriage always falsely claiming that opposite sex marriage is "traditional" when clearly other religious communities perform same sex weddings? I mean, same sex couples have undergone wedding and other relationship rituals in many cultures and societies all over the world.
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.
