Reply With Quote
Brilliant.
I'm just wondering.
What exactly is it about "gay marriage" or a "civil union" that scares or upsets people into wanting to ban them?
Is it because you think it will make sexuality more acceptable?
Is it because you think it will make more people decide they are sexual?
I'm just curious that is all.
Brilliant.
The sexual can "marry" as well, but according to a definition which they do not agree with, much like the polygamistBut it's not. Discrimination occurs when one person is en led to do a particular thing, while another person is not en led to do the same thing, simply by virtue of an identifiable characteristic. In this case, "the thing" is marriage. The polygamist can marry. The sexual cannot. Discrimination. Q.E.D.
Which I agree with, hence my willingness to support the rights of individuals, not the state, to define marriage as they see fit.But it doesn't permit those in a given "majority" group to unilaterally define what the rights of others will be.
Neither would I.. . . . and again, the Christian marriage thing was a hypothetical to test your position. I, by no means, would ever support a movement to define marriage as an ins ution only between Christians.
I thought so too. After all, it was just my observation.Brilliant.
You know, I think if people want to keep marriage defined between a man and a woman, that is fine. I wish the government would simply issue civil uninions to EVERYONE, then marriage can be handled completely by a church. And then if a church wishes to recognize same sex marriage, it can.
Everyone would be equal, and the government would be compeltely out of marriage.
What if marriage was simply treated as a private contract and not limited by the government? If a man and a woman wish to agree to a marriage contract created by an ins ution of faith, that's their choice. If perhaps an insi ution of faith waited to create a multiple marriage contract then they could. If a sexual double, triple, or quadruple wanted to enter into one they could as well.
The polygamist has the benefit of his government saying that he can marry the person of his choosing in the first instance. That is a fundamental right and is subject to curtailment only when the State can demonstrate a compelling interest for doing so. As to any secondary marriages -- a secondary right -- the polygamist's right can be curtailed by a reasonable exercise of the police power. If there is discrimination in the second marriage, it is only on the basis of his previous marriage, which is permissible if the limitation is reasonable. The "discrimination" has nothing to do with who the polygamist is -- it has only to do with his self-chosen status. Mostly, though, it doesn't prohibit him from marrying an unmarried person of his choice in the first instance.
The same cannot be said in the context of a sexual who wishes to marry another sexual. In the first instance, the argument would deny that sexual the right to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance, only by virtue of his choice of who he wishes to marry.
That would be a solution. But if governmental benefits are doled out based on whether or not someone is married, all such contracts would have to be recognized by the government.What if marriage was simply treated as a private contract?
He or she cannot marry the persons of his or her choosing.The polygamist has the benefit of his government saying that he can marry the person of his choosing in the first instance.
And there is no compelling interest for the polygamist's rights being curtailed besides the fact that the Christian majority say so.That is a fundamental right and is subject to curtailment only when the State can demonstrate a compelling interest for doing so.
It's not a secondary right. It's a fundamental right of the polygamist to marry as he or she sees fit.As to any secondary marriages -- a secondary right -- the polygamist's right can be curtailed by a reasonable exercise of the police power.
He or she is forced into a choice of one individual to marry, which violates their fundamental right to marry as they see fit, as well as their right to religious expression.If there is discrimination in the second marriage, it is only on the basis of his previous marriage, which is permissible if the limitation is reasonable. The "discrimination" has nothing to do with who the polygamist is -- it has only to do with his self-chosen status. Mostly, though, it doesn't prohibit him from marrying an unmarried person of his choice in the first instance.
The sexual can marry someone, but the state puts limits on that just like it cir scribes the rights of the polygamist and everyone else for that matter to define marriage as they see fit.The same cannot be said in the context of a sexual who wishes to marry another sexual. In the first instance, the argument would deny that sexual the right to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance, only by virtue of his choice of who he wishes to marry.
That's the direction I believe we should be heading.That would be a solution.
What if the tax code is simplified by Bush and there is no "Married" tax rate?
And with the divorce rate over 50%..is the sanc y of marriage really the issue?
I'm well aware. I recognized the MO.
oh ok.
See the conversation about brussel sprouts a couple of pages ago...
But I hate brussel sprouts!
So do I, the fact that a lot of people dont like them, kind of formed the base of the analogy.
But they are welcome on my plate. I just won't eat them.
And yet my son has an enormous hissy-fit until I entirely remove the offending vegetable from his plate.
I try to teach him not to react that way, because it upsets everyone else around the table...but he is quite adament about expressing his displeasure and couldn't care less if we're happy about it or not.
Even the "there are people starving in China" logic fails.
No, it isn't....
Nice, Joe.
So we all should be treated like children and told what to think by 'mother' government. Makes perfect sense.
You know Marcus, you can't play both sides of the damn plate. You say you hate the government thinking for you, but you also supported a cantidate who when he gets his way will have gone a long way to having government make decisions for you and not allow you to be part of decision making process.
The fact is that you find this kind of stuff easier to support because they follow your beliefs.
You supported a candidate with the same position on "gay marriage" as the candidate I voted for. Get a clue.
Of the two major candidates I voted for the one who most closely matched what I was looking for: an aggressive anti-terrorism policy, a chance at restructuring the major en lement programs and at least delaying the eventual nationalization of our economy, and pissing off clueless little wannabe trendy ers like you. Bush is sure to give me the first of my list. The second I am skeptical of, but it seems like he is getting started on that and the last apparently has already been accomplished. The man knows how to deliver.
Of course neither candidate is going to provide every voter with what they precisely believe. That's the nature of politics.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 11-05-2004 at 09:24 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
