[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What if she has? What right do you have to program your mores onto others?[/quote]
People have no right to program their mores onto others, unless doing so prevents significant harm, and even then it needs to be closely scrutinized before being approved.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Harmful to society as in spread the HIV virus like the homosexual population does, or harmful in a different way…I want to make sure I know what you mean.[/quote]
Gay marriage reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but we both know you don’t really care about that right?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What if she has? What right do you have to program your mores onto others?
People have no right to program their mores onto others, unless doing so prevents significant harm, and even then it needs to be closely scrutinized before being approved.
[/quote]
Gay marriage will not prevent any significant harm.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
What if she has? What right do you have to program your mores onto others?
People have no right to program their mores onto others, unless doing so prevents significant harm, and even then it needs to be closely scrutinized before being approved.
Gay marriage will not prevent any significant harm. [/quote]
Won’t cause any either, which was the point he was making.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gay marriage will not prevent any significant harm. [/quote]
Gay marriage reduces the spread of disease, increases social stability, benefits the couple in numerous ways (hospital visitation, social security, etc.), and improves the health and well being of the children of gay couples.
Not that it has anything to do with my earlier point.
This isn’t a gay thread.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
This isn’t a gay thread.
You don’t understand, wherever forelife posts it becomes a gay thread.[/quote]
This is a thread about extending marriage benefits to everyone against whom the government discriminates. This is not a gay thread.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
This isn’t a gay thread.
You don’t understand, wherever forelife posts it becomes a gay thread.
This is a thread about extending marriage benefits to everyone against whom the government discriminates. This is not a gay thread. [/quote]
Exactly. And, I’m a little dissapointed in forelife’s lukewarm (if any) support of the polygamously oriented and their inalienable right to marriage benefits. Too many ifs, ands, and buts. I don’t know where he stands on first cousins getting, and that would be interesting. Anyways, the bigotry has to stop folks.
Hey, why shouldn’t two heterosexaul roommates, set on remaining life long bachelors, be allowed to form a marital/civil union and take part in marriage beneftis? Isn’t it discriminatory to deny them this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
This isn’t a gay thread.
You don’t understand, wherever forelife posts it becomes a gay thread.
This is a thread about extending marriage benefits to everyone against whom the government discriminates. This is not a gay thread.
Exactly. And, I’m a little dissapointed in forelife’s lukewarm (if any) support of the polygamously oriented and their inalienable right to marriage benefits. Too many ifs, ands, and buts. I don’t know where he stands on first cousins getting, and that would be interesting. Anyways, the bigotry has to stop folks.[/quote]
Well, I appreciate his desire to see some data on polygamy first. I’m much more cavalier. I say, “Do it!” And the age of consent has to be done away with as well, if we’re not to discriminate against Muslims.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gay marriage will not prevent any significant harm.
Gay marriage reduces the spread of disease, increases social stability, benefits the couple in numerous ways (hospital visitation, social security, etc.), and improves the health and well being of the children of gay couples.
Not that it has anything to do with my earlier point.[/quote]
Gay marriage will force acceptance of your mores on those who don’t want them because you are under the misguided notion that it will prevent significant harm.
You need to understand what you say before you start tying shit.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
This isn’t a gay thread. [/quote]
Not that I’m the only one to discuss the application to gay marriage in this thread, and not that you aren’t using this thread as a cover for criticizing gay marriage, but out of respect for your request I’ll forego any further comment.
how about legally we call any partnership as such a civil union,
and leave marriage to the religious sector where it started.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Could you maybe do that on all the other threads too? Hey just asking…[/quote]
Could you maybe lead by example?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
how about legally we call any partnership as such a civil union,
and leave marriage to the religious sector where it started.
[/quote]
What if the gays/polygamists/animal lovers start their own religious groups?
Marriage is a word, not owned exclusively by any one religion. True, if someone gets married outside of a religious context (i.e. Atheist couple) then feel free to say Civil Union, but you can’t say marriage is exclusively religious without inevitably shitting on somebody’s religion.
One man and one woman is something you’re all taking from an Abrahamic context. Sorry to break it to you, but that’s not the only religious group. And nothing exists to stop the above mentioned groups from forming their own church. This is alarming considering pedophiles and animal lovers (there must be a term for this, I can’t think of it) from starting religious groups.
To keep religious groups happy, I think (in terms of government interference) marriage should be a consenting relationship (not necessarily sexual i.e. Asexuals) between two or more consenting human adults.
From here, individual Churches and religious institutes are free to ignore whatever marriage they consider against the teachings of their religion. If a Mosque refuses to accept a Christian marriage… is it really going to affect you or your relationship?
No matter what your misgivings about this issue, I think we can mostly agree that marriage is a sacrament between God, you, and your partner(s). Not God, the Government, you, and your partner(s).
[quote]forlife wrote:
Not that I’m constitutionally opposed to polygamy, I think it should be evaluated on its own merits to determine whether or not it meets the standard we’ve been discussing.
[/quote]
You’re right about this point, these “contracts” between people should be evaluated on their own merit and then their recognition decided on by the democratic process. Unfortunately the homosexual lobby is trying to subvert the very process that you are describing.
Gay marriage has been evaluated by the public and the public has overwhelming chosen not to recognize it. The homosexual has responded by trying to affirm that recognition of marriage is a “right” (which it is not), because rights are not subjected to the scrutiny and evaluation you claim to be a proponent of.
A police officer cannot “evaluate” the situation and determine he must search my home without a warrant because he knows I’m a really bad guy. That’s because I have a “right” to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
The people can not “evaluate” the situation and vote that speaking out against the government is now a capital crime because it’s a threat to national security.
The is the power of a “right”, it is not subjected to cursory evaluation or the whims of the people. That is the point of this thread.
By attempting to circumvent the evaluation portion of this process and establish marriage recognition as a “right”, it prohibits us from “evaluating” the benefits of incestuous marriage. You cannot deny someone a fundamental right based on their familial relationships, no matter how hard you have “evaluated” it.
Recognition of marriage is not an enumerated right, never had been, and thus should be subject to the democratic process. And that is an issue completely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not we should chose to recognize gay marriages. No one has a “right” to have their marriage recognized by the government, straight gay or in between.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
forlife wrote:
Not that I’m constitutionally opposed to polygamy, I think it should be evaluated on its own merits to determine whether or not it meets the standard we’ve been discussing.
You’re right about this point, these “contracts” between people should be evaluated on their own merit and then their recognition decided on by the democratic process. Unfortunately the homosexual lobby is trying to subvert the very process that you are describing.
Gay marriage has been evaluated by the public and the public has overwhelming chosen not to recognize it. The homosexual has responded by trying to affirm that recognition of marriage is a “right” (which it is not), because rights are not subjected to the scrutiny and evaluation you claim to be a proponent of.
A police officer cannot “evaluate” the situation and determine he must search my home without a warrant because he knows I’m a really bad guy. That’s because I have a “right” to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
The people can not “evaluate” the situation and vote that speaking out against the government is now a capital crime because it’s a threat to national security.
The is the power of a “right”, it is not subjected to cursory evaluation or the whims of the people. That is the point of this thread. By attempting to circumvent the evaluation portion of this process and establish marriage recognition as a “right”, it prohibits us from “evaluating” the benefits of incestuous marriage.
You cannot deny someone a fundamental right based on their familial relationships, no matter how hard you have “evaluated” it.
Recognition of marriage is not an enumerated right, never had been, and thus should be subject to the democratic process. And that is an issue completely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not we should chose to recognize gay marriages. No one has a “right” to have their marriage recognized by the government, straight gay or in between.
[/quote]
Thunderbolt has already tried to make him understand this numerous times and failed, but bravo for trying.