by ignored_one 96 Replies latest social current
Yeru
Who pays for the 36 kids of unmarried polygamists? We do. The legality of the parents relationship is irrelevant.
Thi Chi
I wish I'd posted that you'd say "slippery slope"! I knew it would come out. And thanks for laying your cards on the table. There really is no discourse to be had with you as your ideals are fixed and as such, discussion is futile. Good luck with your beliefs.
Yeru
So, when I'm married to six women each with six of my kids and you're supporting us with your taxes, no complaints.
If you object to people claiming welfare under certain circumstances, campaign to change welfare legislation. This would stop the adverse consequence you claim could occur happening without restricting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others.
As you could shack up with six women now and sire 36 little Yerus to claim welfare, not only is the adverse consequence you claim avoidable, it is already possible without change to the legislation on marriage.
So much for your slippery slope arguments. Give them up, they're a pile of poo.
dubla
what i implied is that you were making a sweeping (negative) suggestion about christians in general,
And you were wrong.
I had made no sweeping statements about Christians in general in the post you refered to. I had commented on the irony of the two negative comments on the thread coming from Christian posters.
If you cannot show me where my sweeping generalisation was in that post, either you know I didn't, but are unwilling to conceed you are wrong, OR don't know you are wrong, and are in need of remedial reading classes/a lower screen resolution/corrective lenses.
ThiChi
Oh, that comment regarding blame was because despite the fact, as I mentioned in my previous comment to you, there is no way of seeing anything other than intolerance in your first comment on this thread, you would reply in way which sought to make your lack of clarity (you say you're tolerant but post things which show you're not) someone's fault other than your own.
From the Traditional Christian viewpoint, interracial marriage is not forbidden nor condemned in the Bible, so you only offer a false dilemma here.
I made no mention of the Bible. I merely said;
"posting a comment that you wondered what path your nation is heading down in a thread about homosexuall marriage is the way you show tolerance?"
How would you say your original statement showed tolerance of gay marriage? No answer means you have no answer, by the way. It might stick in your craw to admit you are not tolerant, but how else do you explain things?
Yer is right, we have already gone down the slippery slope. There is already a Federal Court Case pending defending Polygamy based on the legal gains in some parts of the Country related to the same sex marriage issue.
Well, I'm against polygamy as it is sexist. Plural or group marriages should be allowed to those that want them. Any adverse concequences regarding cultists are better targeted with specific legislation, as I have commented to Yeru; that way other people's freedoms are not constrained.
Another case on appeal (which I posted here about a month ago) is a Father that is living as husband & Wife with his 30 year old Daughter. The appeal is based on the same premise.
Quite why he hasn't been arrested for incest (which, like, you know, is against the law, even between adults) I don't know. If your law system is an ass don't attempt to pin the tail on gay people for its shortcomings.
Marriage is a sacrament, ordained by God, and reiterated by his Son, Jesus Christ, while on earth.
TO YOU. As marriage pre-dates Christianity, any claim to have a 'copyright' on marriage is false. Some Christians are acting like it's a soley Christian institution. I don't see any problem with other people re-defining marriage in line with modern thinking regarding equality.
Look ThiChi, post away. I'll react away. I'll post away. You'll react away. That is how it works.
>> Marriage is a sacrament, ordained by God, and reiterated by his Son, Jesus Christ, while on earth.
I disagree.
rem
abaddon-
I had made no sweeping statements about Christians in general in the post you refered to. I had commented on the irony of the two negative comments on the thread coming from Christian posters.If you cannot show me where my sweeping generalisation was in that post
okay, ill break it down for you....here was the comment i was referring to:
Hey everyone, isn't it kind of typical that amongst the messages of goodwill and congratulations the only ones not sending their love to those who can now signify their love for another human being in an official manner are the people who identify themselves as Christians?
now, you start out with, "isnt it kind of typical..."
typical:
exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category
you went on pointing out that the only posters who hadnt sent "their love" were christians. it implies that its "typical" of christians to act this way.......looking at the defintion of the word, you were pointing out characteristics of a "group", namely christians. its pretty simple really. the comment suggests to the reader that a specific trait (not sending love, unloving) of those identifying themselves as christian is "typical". hopefully this helps.
aa
FunckyD : governments should make no distinction between individuals who are married and those who are not (except for providing the normal legal protection for whatever contract the couple (or group) has entered into). This would allow any consenting adults to enter into any kinds of relationships they wanted or none at all and be treated exactly the same by the government. Religions could of course continue to define marriage in whatever way they wanted but this should have no influence on law. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that.
Yeah sounds fine to me ... (simple / efficient)
""I wish I'd posted that you'd say "slippery slope"! I knew it would come out. And thanks for laying your cards on the table. There really is no discourse to be had with you as your ideals are fixed and as such, discussion is futile. Good luck with your beliefs.""
Well the same could be said for your firm beliefs on this issue too. Is there anything I can say or do to make you wake up? ..... Is it fun being Human or what?
""How would you say your original statement showed tolerance of gay marriage?""
You use the word "tolerance" in a very manipulative way. I bet I could list many, many issues you are not tolerant of, that affects other peoples actions.
As an example, are you tolerant of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc)? Well I would bet you are not, unless you approve of men having sex with underage boys.
However, there are people who believe in this, and are using the ACLU to defend their way of life in Court.
Are you bad or "intolerant" for opposing them? Using your logic, then, we would have to except them because we have no controlling values to state or prove to use against this action.
Oh, they can claim that this act has been going on in History as long as man has walked the earth.
They can and do argue this act is acceptable, they can claim that "underage" is subjective and that we come of age when we hit puberty, more people are now involved, blah,blah,blah.
I claim that, based on your own logic, you are "Intolerant." Who cares what you draw the line at? You are not allowing people to do their thing, or live by their "values".
"Oh, that is not fair" you may state, "It is just plain wrong" Oh yea? Prove it is wrong! The Courts have already decided that they can exist as a Club. They are claiming and gaining normalcy through the courts.
Will you join me and fight this perversion of NAMBLA? Or, are you To l e r e n t.....It may require you not allowing people to do their "thing" It may take you standing for Values that you cannot state for a fact are valid or fair....
See where your logic can go?
I can also cite many other activities that fall under this thinking.
Notwithstanding: The issue is not as simplistic as you claim:
The Government was not always involved in the act of Marriage. One hundred years ago, I could have jumped over a broom stick and registered my marriage with the local Church. If the Government was not involved in marriage (controlling our actions via Taxation), I would not object what people do with their lives, however, I would still encourage the Christian way.. So I resist the entitlements that affect all of us as taxpayers.
I have a half Brother that is gay. I car pool to work with a lesbian. (By the way both feel the gay agenda is exploiting the Marriage issue..).
I ahve other resons for concern, but I will let it rest with this.
Abaddon,
You make it sound as though you would have the State step in and council (inform) someone of legal age in a religion that wants to be in a polygamist (finally spelled the darn word right) marriage but not someone who isn't in such a group. I can't imagine that flying from a practical, legislative and social work standpoint. More red tape and big government if implemented.
Your argument about gun rights seems rather inappropriate, even to the point of making the opposite argument you support. Gun ownership is a right protected under our constitution. However, restrictions are in place to limit or outlaw certain types of guns that are thought to not really be beneficial to society. However, if someone really wants to own a machine gun for instance, they can obtain one through certain channels; the same way a group marriage could obtain their legal "rights" through legal channels regarding community ownership etc. It's just that they don't get a blanket stamp of approval. Most folks accept these restrictions regarding gun ownership without thinking them overly intrusive. It's simply a judgement call.
Traditionally, marriage is thought of as more of an ideal than a right. Not everyone chooses to get married. But since its beginning, by its very definition, it has been limited to a man and a woman. There are few benefits to "marriage" that other legal instruments would not remedy for unions outside of the man/woman relationship. But there are some that are not normally argued about.
So, if that's the case then what is this really all about? It is about cultural change and not rights. Non-traditional unions are seeking societal approval, support and legitimazation to make them feel better about it. ... nothing more. True academics on this subject want people's attitudes to change regarding marriage and family. The rights issue to me seems to be a means to that end and somewhat of a smoke screen.
In my required "Marriage and Family" class from my Sociology degree plan we almost exclusively studied non-traditional relationships and families. The class was very forthright in that it came right out and said that it was about cultural and policy change. I don't recall it focusing on "rights" issues all that much . It was more along the lines of: Since some people's relationships have changed, then government must keep up with the changing values and social organization of certain groups, and so society must change.
There were lively discussions along the lines of the cultural and societal ramifications of redifining marriage and family. I easily Aced the class, and though my professor and I disagreed on many points, I found her agruments to be mostly intellectually honest. She was a true believer. No one was called names like bleeding heart liberal or homophobe for discussing issues. Everyone took away more than what they started with.
I'll quote a couple of things from the text book written in circa 1995:
"Unlike heterosexual couples, homosexual couples receive little social support for continuing long-term relationships. On average, relationships for both gay males and lesbians last two years to three years"..... (Harry 1983)
"The major difference separating us as heterosexual and lesbian couples: our lesbian marriage had none of the support systems Mr. and Mrs. "Next Door" enjoyed. I had not had a bridal shower or a bachelor party.... We never received anniversary cards. As trival as these things may seem, they repressent something vitally important: heterosexual couples are encouraged to stay together... Lesbian and homosexual couples have no such support system. Mary Mendola (1980)
[Simply] registering as partners lacks the deep symbolism of marriage. (Salholz, 1993)
Some of the arguments against:
One of the reasons I don't like to associate [her lesbian relationship] with marriage is because heterosexual marriage seems to be in trouble. It's like booking passage on the Titanic. (Sherman 1992)
They stress that legalizing same sex unions would further stigmatize any sex outside marriage, with unmarried lesbians and gay men facing heightened discrimination. (Ettelbrick 1989)
And a recent Sweden study:
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
Chicago Tribune
The problem is this: In recent decades, the courts and our culture have at various times construed all kinds of people to be children's "parents," including stepparents, adoptive parents, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, and mother's and father's boyfriends and girlfriends.
Just ask the fatherless children who write plaintive songs and poetry agonizing over their father's abandonment. Ask children of sperm donors who now organize on the Web to find other kin sired by the same man--a hundred children all feeling connected because they came from one man's sperm.
In varying instances, children accept, reject, question or are deeply confused by these formulations. The fact is, to children's ears, the two words that mean the same thing, all the time, and that mean everything, are "mother" and "father." In Massachusetts, gay marriage has made the law unable to affirm that children need mothers and fathers, not just "parents," and if children say otherwise, the law will be silent.
Does an abundance of love from two mommies or two daddies make children of gays and lesbians feel any differently than other children? I don't think we have the answers yet. The early studies of children of gays and lesbians are small and, so far, contradictory. It will be years before the long-term studies are done, before this first generation grows up and tells us about the experience.
Gay and lesbian couples are already raising children, and those children need legal and social protections. Civil unions will achieve that goal. In the meantime, I wonder: Before we continue experiments with marriage--which so far have been led by heterosexuals and too often resulted in children's pain--could we try to have a serious, calm discussion about what gay marriage might mean?
And let's promise ourselves that our whole society will listen, really listen, to what children have to say. Copyright (c) 2003,
Of course all these views both pro and con will be multiplied by many times over when polygamist and group bisexual marriages are made legal.
And last but not least the "what will the neighbors think" comes into play. Already the islamic world views the western world and especially the US as morally bankrupt and that our culture is in serious decline. Could all these changes to the societal bedrock institution of marriage be viewed as absloute proof of our degenerancy especially with other non-traditional marriages on the horizon? Will this give them further encourgement and justification to wage "jihad" as we export our deconstruction of centries old notions of family and marriage?
My question is this:
Does helping gays, bi-sexuals and polygamists to feel better about themselves by providing a greater emotional support system through the legalization of non-traditional marriages justify ignoring possible unintended consequences regarding children, additional tax burdens, and moral ammunition for our enemies.
So I resist the entitlements that affect all of us as taxpayers.
I don't understand how this affects people as taxpayers. If children need financial support from the government what difference can it possibly make if the parents are married or not? Won't they need the support either way?
Good question:
The Government gives you a tax break if you are married. If you are not married, you pay more taxes. True? Where does the government get the money to give you a tax break? The Government must take that money from someone else and give it to you.
See the connection? Also, As the FEDs pass employment laws that employers must obey, more money is spent providing for more coverage as people can marry.
The point is the Government should not use the power of taxation to control lives....
i'm so glad i'm not enslaved to christianity anymore! ah, beautiful freedom!!! i don't have to pass judgement on my fellow man/woman anymore!!! (i am totally serious here).
if two consenting adults want to be married, i say let them. then they can pay the marriage penalty in taxes and have to pay divorce lawyers like us poor straight saps do if things don't work out lol.
seriously, though, i think that as long as two people are adults and not harming anyone by their choice to be together, then for petes sake, let them get married legally.
the whole 'we're heading for plural marriage' etc etc is absurd. it's like saying "that truck is red, they're going to stop making cars." nonsensical. marriage should be deemed a legal union between two adults. the end.
~fleur
