Deadman:
Making Polygamy legal would require a huge adjustment to how marriage works. Off the top of my head
WHICH spouse makes the medical decisions?
How is wealth divided up after death?
Divorce... ugh.
Can the other spouses block another marriage?
How the heck does that work with taxes?
The only change homosexual marriage requires is variable mr and mrs. checkboxes.
If it's exploitative it's by definition not consensual. And observation of actual polygamous groups bear this out. You think teenage girls are just lining up on their own to marry nonagenarian prophets?
As often as not, yeah. Which brings me back to: if gay marriage is okay because it's the will of two consenting adults, why isn't polygamy okay because it's the will of 3 or more consenting adults?
You're starting with the completely incorrect assumption that all plural relationships are that way. They are not. What you are presenting is a good reason why there should be oversight for the marrying of otherwise minors, and why religious cults are bad. You're not presenting evidence as to why or how ALL plural relationships are abusive, or why ALL polygamous marriages should be banned. Only some. Do better.
Deadman:
Making Polygamy legal would require a huge adjustment to how marriage works. Off the top of my head
So one type of romantic relationship should be okay to call "less than equal" because it might cause someone a legal headache?
Tough shit!
We are talking about, fundamentally, changing the definition of marriage to be broader than it is. To include same sex relationships. Why is it inappropriate to allow polygamy if all parties are consenting? Certainly the onus would be on the participants in that relationship to work all those details out, just as it is in a 2-person marriage.
I'd also like to point out that "it invariably leads to abuse", the reason Samnell is using to keep polygamy illegal, is the same reasoning used to ban alcohol. Guys drink, they beat their wives, ergo ban alcohol. It's a pretty poor excuse for reason, IMHO.
|
Deadman:
Making Polygamy legal would require a huge adjustment to how marriage works. Off the top of my head
Well sure, and it isn't going to get approved in the next few years either, as public sentiment is still strongly against it.
But those are practical problems, and ones that can be overcome (in the case of legal complexity, fairly readily). I'm arguing for what's morally right, not what can be accomplished easily or right at the moment.
.
.
.
I basically agree with meatrace, here. Hell, I too honestly think we should just get rid of government sanctioned marriage, allowing people to make their own contracts between each other if they desire such things.
But that's not gonna happen, so if we have a government sanctioned and enforced version, it should be fair and open to everyone.
So one type of romantic relationship should be okay to call "less than equal" because it might cause someone a legal headache?
Tough s+$#!
Its not just a legal headache. I don't know what it would look like legally, so its a legal unknown. When someone says I'm for legal polygamy what does that mean specifically? How does it function, how does it work etc.
I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy.
So one type of romantic relationship should be okay to call "less than equal" because it might cause someone a legal headache?
Tough s+$#!
Its not just a legal headache. I don't know what it would look like legally, so its a legal unknown. When someone says I'm for legal polygamy what does that mean specifically? How does it function, how does it work etc.
I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy.
** spoiler omitted **
Well, and not to beat this in too hard, but why does whether you can wrap your head around it matter?
The point, to me, is that people RIGHT NOW are living in long-term, committed, loving poly relationships in a zillion variations. Some of them happen to be friends of mine. Frankly I find it pretty weird, but it works for them and they're happy. Why shouldn't their relationship be recognized by the state in precisely the same manner that hetero (or homo) couples are? Since the relationship of one man and one woman (or, if you prefer, two PEOPLE) is the model for marriage, why can't this other relationship model be recognized?
How the marriage works, I imagine, would be just how the already existing relationships work. I'd suggest googling polyamory, polyandry, etc. I can't speak to how it works on a day to day basis, since I don't live that lifestyle.
As for a legal framework, we can look at any of the many many countries that allow it, adjust where needed to maintain equity for all parties, and see how it works.
Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.
The 'marriage' that you are basing your account of is actually a method of establishing paternity.
A successful man had a lot of stuff. He wanted to give his stuff to his children, but he needed a way to make sure that they actually were HIS children.
He found a guy with a virgin daughter. Bought her from the man, thereby guaranteeing himself that any children they made were his.
In the modern era, we have much simpler and more humane ways of establishing paternity.
Well, and not to beat this in too hard, but why does whether you can wrap your head around it matter?
Its not that I can't wrap my head around it. I really wish you would stop jumping to a blatant misreading of what I'm saying that makes me out to be the moron.
Its that they don't know PRECISELY what they're asking for. If they don't know what they're asking for how am I supposed to know if i want to give it to them or not? Is there an upper limit to this? Can everyone marry bill gates to get his insurance?
The point, to me, is that people RIGHT NOW are living in long-term, committed, loving poly relationships in a zillion variations. Some of them happen to be friends of mine. Frankly I find it pretty weird, but it works for them and they're happy. Why shouldn't their relationship be recognized by the state in precisely the same manner that hetero (or homo) couples are?
Because it CAN"T possibly BE the same, by definition. Baring some soap opera style MPD your one wife cannot be divided against herself about what medical decisions to make. Your two wives can be. That needs a different law/ruling. You can marry anyone you want to that wants to marry you. What happens if you want to marry a second wife and the wife you already has doesn't want to?
I'm not saying its a bad idea. I just don't think its been thought out to the level that it would need to be in order to work.
From an equality perspective, everyone else is allowed to marry one person and that's it. So there's no legal imperative to require the legalization of polyamory.
Since the relationship of one man and one woman (or, if you prefer, two PEOPLE) is the model for marriage, why can't this other relationship model be recognized?
Because the other model doesn't yet fully exist to be recognized. The OUTLINE of the model is there certainly, but the nitty gritty details of how it will interact with 50 state laws and 1 federal law system do not.
How the marriage works, I imagine, would be just how the already existing relationships work. I'd suggest googling polyamory, polyandry, etc. I can't speak to how it works on a day to day basis, since I don't live that lifestyle.
What two or more (or less) people want to do in their bedrooms is their own business.
As for a legal framework, we can look at any of the many many countries that allow it, adjust where needed to maintain equity for all parties, and see how it works.
Like new york telephone, its all connected. YOu can't just cut something from one legal system and plop it down in another. You would need to completely rewrite most of the legal codes that deal with marriage around the polygamy.
And just let me be clear, I'm too ugly to date, much less marry, much less marry twice, So i really have no dog in this fight.
|
|
Its not just a legal headache. I don't know what it would look like legally, so its a legal unknown. When someone says I'm for legal polygamy what does that mean specifically? How does it function, how does it work etc.
I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy.
Please list how marriage currently works, legally. I'm fairly certain all issues can be solved relatively quickly. Certainly by any competent lawmaker.
For example:
WHICH spouse makes the medical decisions?
Which parent makes medical decisions for a child? It depends, but can be worked out pretty easily.
How is wealth divided up after death?
Evenly? Or possibly however their will states, if they have one. I'm...not quite sure what you're even asking here.
Divorce... ugh.
Indeed. As messy as any other divorce, maybe messier. They get an appropriate proportion of the jointly held stuff, one presumes.
Can the other spouses block another marriage?
Legally? Probably not, but it's certainly grounds for a divorce...
How the heck does that work with taxes?
How does current marriage? I'm aware there are potential tax benefits, but I've actually never investigated it in detail, and my parents aren't married, so I've never really seen first hand either.
EDIT:
From an equality perspective, everyone else is allowed to marry one person and that's it. So there's no legal imperative to require the legalization of polyamory.
I'm unclear how this is materially different from the statement that "Anyone can already get married, as long as it's to the opposite gender." It's true, but doesn't keep the statement from restricting who people are allowed to marry and have recognized as legitimate lovers.
Why should a group of three people who truly love each other and want to spend their lives together have to pick one of them to not be part of their legal relationship? One who can't visit their lover in the hospital?
Well, and not to beat this in too hard, but why does whether you can wrap your head around it matter?Its not that I can't wrap my head around it. I really wish you would stop jumping to a blatant misreading of what I'm saying that makes me out to be the moron.
You're really an overly defensive chap. I in no way said or suggested you were a moron, just that you didn't understand the intricacies of polygamy. Neither do I. Or most of the rest of the world, quite frankly. But that's a bad reason to disallow it.
Right now when, say, one half of a relationship is in a persistent vegetative state the other half has the power to decide to pull the plug. Oh except like Terry Shaivo where her parents overruled the husband. Or a thousand other examples where people sue to enjoin others from actions. I imagine it'd be like that. Or you'd just stipulate who has precedence over who in, like, a power of attorney document.
You say it hasn't been thought out to a level where it would work. I say there are already millions of people in the world in plural marriages, and certainly tens of thousands of people in the US in plural relationships who would disagree.
The point is, to me, much like with gay marriage, there are people living like this right now in a loving relationship with multiple people. They've worked all the problems out, or as much as you can expect in ANY relationship. There are married couples that live with additional unmarried partners, but because the state doesn't recognize the relationships with the unmarried partners all the same HORRIBLE things that happen with gay couples happen there as well. Not being able to put them on insurance, not being able to visit in the hospital, not having automatic legal guardianship of out of wedlock offspring, etc. As for the legal problems, I think that it's reasonable for all these things to be worked out as part of the marriage license application. Including, possibly, consent from existing spouse.
But I think in the end you're asking the wrong questions. You seem to be asking "I want to know exactly what you're proposing before I decide whether I'm okay with it" and my question is, what does it matter if you're okay with it, if they're consenting adults? I understand it's a paradigm shift, thinking of marriage or even relationships as being something that can work with more than two people involved, but so is it for a good portion of the country for gay marriage. That's not a good reason to disallow it.
I'm of the mind that if you're not demonstrably hurting someone else doing what you're doing, then go nuts. I'm for legalization of all drugs, legalization of assisted suicide, all that fun stuff.
The polygamy has started to be a thread-jack. If you want to keep going start another thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that isn't directly about Obama's statement is a threadjack. The rest of the discussion here is rehash of a dozen other threads with the exact same players saying the exact same things. Yawn. It's like watching reruns of Happy Days, but only the later season ones without Ritchie.
The polygamy has started to be a thread-jack. If you want to keep going start another thread.
I know it's gone a bit sideways, but to bring it back around and in perspective: gay marriage is a complex issue both legally and politically. I don't begrudge Obama for taking this long on it.
Redefining a cultural construct is going to be and has been a freaking herculean task, but social norms inch forward and aren't constrained or encouraged to change by legislation. The question comes down to whether something that has thus far been defined on a purely historical basis needs to be legislatively redefined in order to ensure equal protections.
The reason it was relevant, to me, is that polygamy is the precise same situation. If you say "let's redefine a cultural construct through legislation to ensure equal protection", then we have to redefine marriage from the ground up. I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry. But when writing laws you need to be succinct precise, and when defending their constitutionality you need to have reason that flows from that constitution.
Once you open the can of worms that is redefinition of marriage, what is the logical stopping point that prevents plural marriage? Marriage has, historically, been between one man and one woman--but occasionally multiple women. Certainly there's a stronger historical pretext for polygamy.
If you say marriage should be between two people, why two? You're already fundamentally redefining it, what makes marriage intrinsically a 2-person deal as a cultural construct and not a 3+ person deal? What makes marriage a heterosexual construct as opposed to a homosexual one? Why did the idea of marriage evolve the way it has to preclude same sex unions?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that isn't directly about Obama's statement is a threadjack. The rest of the discussion here is rehash of a dozen other threads with the exact same players saying the exact same things. Yawn. It's like watching reruns of Happy Days, but only the later season ones without Ritchie.
What is Happy Days?
|
|
Darkwing,
Which particular child abuse issues would you say were exclusive to polygamy? Underage children get abused and forced into marriage repeatedly. And this is heterosexual martiage. I have no doubt there will be examples of it occurring once gay marraige is legalised, too. What does polygamy do that regular marriage doesn't as far as child abuse goes? Because I'd be willing to bet that the same kind of abuse or grooming will happpen with traditional marriage and gay marraige as well.
|
Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.
Homosexuality is found in nature, especially among primates - therefore, it is Natural Law. Also, there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality. You mention "protecting children". Homosexuals adopt children who might not other wise ever belong to a family. Also, one of the social pressures that possibly led to the evolution of homosexual behavior in mammals would be that a homosexual pairing would not produce more children that strain a reproductive group and thus allow for the homosexual pair to focus on the protection and maintenance of the group.
So that you can sort of educate yourself. I present Wikipedia.Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.What exactly is this natural law? Humans apparently evolved in poly-amorous relationships, not one on one relationships.
Wikepedia is not a valid academic source.
Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.Homosexuality is found in nature, especially among primates - therefore, it is Natural Law. Also, there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality. You mention "protecting children". Homosexuals adopt children who might not other wise ever belong to a family. Also, one of the social pressures that possibly led to the evolution of homosexual behavior in mammals would be that a homosexual pairing would not produce more children that strain a reproductive group and thus allow for the homosexual pair to focus on the protection and maintenance of the group.
Homosexuality is not the norm in primates and since when did humanity have to excuse their baser behaviors from the permissions of animals?
Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.What exactly is this natural law? Humans apparently evolved in poly-amorous relationships, not one on one relationships.
When you look at the purpose for which something has been created and it fulfills that purpose then the Natural Law has been fulfilled. Sorry but when you look at how humanity has been made for the sexual act man and women complement each other is so many ways from the physical fit of the copulation to the way that their personalities and attributes help in the raising of children. Anything out side of that is against the Natural Law.
The only some what valid argument is an anthropological one. Same sex couples cannot reproduce, meaning an eventual end to the species.
However, this is really just a slippery slope kind of argument, and only has any relevance if upwards of 50% of humanity were homosexual.
But perhaps this is what Shalafi means by natural law, the reproduction of the species.
EDIT: Yep.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Homosexuality is not the norm in primates and since when did humanity have to excuse their baser behaviors from the permissions of animals?Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.Homosexuality is found in nature, especially among primates - therefore, it is Natural Law. Also, there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality. You mention "protecting children". Homosexuals adopt children who might not other wise ever belong to a family. Also, one of the social pressures that possibly led to the evolution of homosexual behavior in mammals would be that a homosexual pairing would not produce more children that strain a reproductive group and thus allow for the homosexual pair to focus on the protection and maintenance of the group.
It is the norm. It isn't the prevalent norm. But is is NORMALLY found in nature. This means that homosexuals are not choosing to be homosexuals - they just are. To deny them this is to deny their very nature. My point is that homosexuality is found in nature from penguins to bison to monkeys to chimps to humans - and yet you tell me that it isn't natural or the norm. Perhaps we are looking at different sets of data.
Because it is natural, I have no problems with homosexual pairing. Because it is non-exploitative, I have not problems with homosexual marriages.
So here's another thing. Why can't you just say you're married, even if you're not?Because a Random person with no legal record cannot just show up at your hospital room with a handful of flowers and be let in, or worse, make medical decisions for you. There's a difference.
What I mean is, why aren't ALL couples allowed these privileges by virtue of them being in a relationship?Because not everyone wants someone to be able to take half their stuff just because they went to the movies together once.Those are spurious examples, however.
I've been with the same woman for 8 years. We live together. We have no intention of being married. There's no reason that putting my name in the "next of kin" box with medical paperwork isn't good enough to allow me those same rights.Also, what does taking half of your stuff have to do with anything? We're not talking about marriage. You seem to think I want to be treated as married, but rather I'm saying there is no reason not to allow all important privileges of marriage without being joined legally.
If we're talking about EQUAL PROTECTION, why is it I have to fill out paperwork so that my life mate can make important medical decisions in my stead, whereas it defaults to my parents regardless of how completely idiotic or evil they may be (my parents rule, I'm just saying). That's not equal protection, that's affording undeserved rights by virtue of blood but not affording those rights regardless of my desire. It's an odd default for law to take, in the case of an adult.
The part I've bolded is exactly the issue, Meat. If you been living with the same heterosexual partner for 8 years, odds are (may depend on state of residence) you've got a common law marriage, which grants all the legal privileges/rights/etc as a "real" marriage; If you're homosexual and you been living together for exactly the same amount of time, you better have a will and several civil contracts filed, cause you're still just room-mates.
As for all the questions about polygamy... There's one religious group in the US pushing for its governmental recognition, and that group is rife with various sorts of abuse. I'm not saying there couldn't be perfectly fair polygamous marriage, but Big Love was fiction, and Warren Jeffs wasn't. Like, at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Anything out side of that is against the Natural Law.
Am I the only one picturing Charles Darwin in a judge dread mask saying that line or have i been up way too long?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only some what valid argument is an anthropological one. Same sex couples cannot reproduce, meaning an eventual end to the species.
However, this is really just a slippery slope kind of argument, and only has any relevance if upwards of 50% of humanity were homosexual.But perhaps this is what Shalafi means by natural law, the reproduction of the species.
EDIT: Yep.
But that argument isn't valid at all. Same sex couples can reproduce - just not with each other. Throughout history same sex couples reproduced with others just to produce offspring. There are animals that do this as well. They prefer same sex bonding except during certain times in their breeding cycle they might seek out the opposite sex just for reproduction. We live in a time where they do not have to do this because there are plenty of children available for adoption.
There is also a case of a primate sexually assaulting a frog for the primate's own pleasure. Just because it happened in "nature" doesn't mean I am going to say it is ok for humans to do it.
I am not saying homosexual compares to that or that homosexual behavior is "wrong" (whatever we mean by that), but I really dislike claims that because some animal somewhere does something, that means it is ok for humans to do it. We are animals, but we are also thinking animals, we should set a bit higher standard for an argument than merely, "I saw some animal doing so it is ok."
What if a striaght person wants a civil union though? Having all legal status be granted on civil unions for everyone would be good and if they wanted to be married and define it that way so let them but let legal status not discriminate.
The only some what valid argument is an anthropological one. Same sex couples cannot reproduce, meaning an eventual end to the species.
However, this is really just a slippery slope kind of argument, and only has any relevance if upwards of 50% of humanity were homosexual.But perhaps this is what Shalafi means by natural law, the reproduction of the species.
EDIT: Yep.
But that argument isn't valid at all. Same sex couples can reproduce - just not with each other. Throughout history same sex couples reproduced with others just to produce offspring. There are animals that do this as well. They prefer same sex bonding except during certain times in their breeding cycle they might seek out the opposite sex just for reproduction. We live in a time where they do not have to do this because there are plenty of children available for adoption.
Indeed.
|
|
There is also a case of a primate sexually assaulting a frog for the primate's own pleasure. Just because it happened in "nature" doesn't mean I am going to say it is ok for humans to do it.
I am not saying homosexual compares to that or that homosexual behavior is "wrong" (whatever we mean by that), but I really dislike claims that because some animal somewhere does something, that means it is ok for humans to do it. We are animals, but we are also thinking animals, we should set a bit higher standard for an argument than merely, "I saw some animal doing so it is ok."
This is a Strawman. My argument is that you cannot deny a non-exploitative marriage equal protection under the law based on arguing that it is not natural when it clearly is.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b&!+$~~s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b#@#&@!s?
As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
Anything that isn't directly about Obama's statement is a threadjack. The rest of the discussion here is rehash of a dozen other threads with the exact same players saying the exact same things. Yawn. It's like watching reruns of Happy Days, but only the later season ones without Ritchie.
Oh, come now. I brought up "pandering" which you'd think a whole bunch of D&D dorks could've taken in a million directions. Shakespeare, Chaucer, that Age of Bronze comic.
As far as Samnell's anti-polygamy argument, Samnell, quit beating around the bush: MARRIAGE, historically speaking, is an institution for the oppression of women. (Mentioned in passing by Irontruth.)
EDIT: Documented proof at :20, from the realm of musical theater, which is appropriate, natch.
Goblins do it in the street!
Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b$&**&&s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b*$%@+%s?As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
How is outlawing all marriage stupid exactly? Do you want children to have to live through their parents being divorced or fighting all the time? Or one parent that doesn't raise them properly? I think it won't happen because of the right wing would totally attack anyone suggesting such a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wikepedia is not a valid academic source.So that you can sort of educate yourself. I present Wikipedia.Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.What exactly is this natural law? Humans apparently evolved in poly-amorous relationships, not one on one relationships.
I'm sure this has been ninja'ed but...
Well, then it's a good thing this isn't a valid academic discussion.
Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b%%%&&@s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b%++&&&s?As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
I don't disagree, I think the whole natural/animal arguments are stupid.
Not all that is natural is good,
not all that is unnatural is bad,
deep roots are not touched by the frost,
*wait, how did that get in there?*
. Anything out side of that is against the Natural Law.Am I the only one picturing Charles Darwin in a judge dread mask saying that line or have i been up way too long?
hahahahaha You were the only one. But not anymore.
|
For the record I am for Same sex marriage
The issue seems to be People say "The Bible says that it is wrong, So it is wrong and against Gods will to do this". The problem with this statement is that it now puts religion into politics AND Pushes a religious belief onto people that may NOT believe in that book or even that religious belief.
If one claims that it is wrong per the "Bible" Then per the bible it is OK to own slaves as long as they come from a different country. That if a woman has sex BEFORE she is married that it is fine to stone her to death. That if someone... male or female has an adulterous affair that they should be stoned to death. That is it much easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to heaven. That last one is funny :P. That it is OK to have more than 1 wife. That marriage was until Death due you part, meaning No Divorce And there are many other statements like these
IF one is to follow the word of the bible we would be killing off the majority of the women of this world, as well as killing off anyone that slept with another person while they are married, and that every man could have more than 1 wife if he was lucky enough to find enough living breathing women to have another wife since most would be stoned to death by the time they where 18. AND that had he found another woman if he slept with her BEFORE he married her, then he himself would be put to death and thus leaving his other wives with out a husband.
So should same sex marriage be allowed? Yes unless you want to enforce everything else the bible says and also break the bill of rights and Constitution that forbids the mixture of church and state and force 1 religious belief on another.
See I'm Pagan and in our cultural beliefs, it is OK to have a same sex marriage. So legally I would be entitled to such because I do not follow the bible and the government cannot push a religion onto me.
For those who want to use primates as standard of behavior, keep in mind that primate males frequently kill the infants of other males whenever they can get away with it. Part of the survival strategy that females use to counter this is to make parentage as ambiguous as they can manage.
Hawt!!
|
|
For those who want to use primates as standard of behavior, keep in mind that primate males frequently kill the infants of other males whenever they can get away with it. Part of the survival strategy that females use to counter this is to make parentage as ambiguous as they can manage.Homosexuality is not the norm in primates and since when did humanity have to excuse their baser behaviors from the permissions of animals?Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.Homosexuality is found in nature, especially among primates - therefore, it is Natural Law. Also, there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality. You mention "protecting children". Homosexuals adopt children who might not other wise ever belong to a family. Also, one of the social pressures that possibly led to the evolution of homosexual behavior in mammals would be that a homosexual pairing would not produce more children that strain a reproductive group and thus allow for the homosexual pair to focus on the protection and maintenance of the group.
Straw must be on sale today. I never said we should look to non-humans for standards of behavior. I was merely pointing out that one cannot use the argument that homosexuality is not natural and therefore same-sex marriages should be illegal because it is natural. Context is important.
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
Hee hee!
Fair's fair, Paul. You did call him a moron.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.Show. Don't tell.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/#SH2b
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
Hee hee!
Fair's fair, Paul. You did call him a moron.
Simply because you are either unable or unwilling to understand the premise does not make the presenter a "moron" as you put it.
Removed a post and a response to it. For the most part this discussion has been relatively civil. Let's keep it that way, please.
|
|
How is outlawing all marriage stupid exactly? Do you want children to have to live through their parents being divorced or fighting all the time? Or one parent that doesn't raise them properly? I think it won't happen because of the right wing would totally attack anyone suggesting such a thing.Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b$&**&&s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b*$%@+%s?As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
I have found some of your statements to be fairly ignorant. First off, you must define what you mean by "natural law". To me this means that morals can be derived from the laws of nature using reason. However, it is still an abstraction because it is interpreted by humans with different philosophical lenses. For me natural law comes from science coupled with reason and social awareness - not some ancient text. To demonstrate that homosexuality violates natural law, you would have demonstrate how it is an immoral function of human behavior, one that cannot be found in nature, or that when found in nature is detrimental to a population. You have not done that - you have simply stated an opinion as fact without evidence.