Gay Marriage

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It poses a threat to the civil society in that it condones homosexuality and sodomy - an abhorrent and unnatural act.

[/quote]

And we have come to the heart of the issue.

You use two adjectives: abhorrent and unnatural. The first is your subjective opinion and it is not the opinion of all or even close to all people. Furthermore, that something disgusts you is not grounds for legally disallowing. Obviously. I am absolutely disgusted by tuna fish sandwiches. But I’m not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to eat them.

The second adjective, “unnatural,” is not true: it is entirely natural in that it is something which certain men and women–creatures of nature, mind you–do.

It occurs naturally in the animal world as well: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia
[/quote]

The same could be said too for interracial marriage. In fact this was probably less uncommon and natural back in the day when races were separated by larger distances/boundaries.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You’ve missed the boat on several things, not the least of which is a focus on gay marriage’s “suppression” of procreative activity (or lack thereof). I don’t think anyone is saying gay marriage would suppress procreative activity, and marriage doesn’t promote procreative activity.

Procreative activity is going to happen; marriage (and the public policy of marriage) is designed to steer that activity into socially beneficial directions, and more importantly, steer that activity away from dangerous - even socially catastrophic - social consequences.

The socially beneficial direction being, of course, a child being born and raised by the people responsible for bringing it into the world. Marriage not only encourages this for many obvious reasons (incentives to keep the couple in tact) and also discourages bad events (disincentives to go have children out of wedlock, for example).

Marriage has not ever existed to simply validate a private person’s choice of relationship - as Sloth has said, a good ole “pat on the back, good for you” - from a public point of view, we don’t have a public policy need to simply “hugh five” someone for entering into a private relationship. Thus, that is not a public reason to have marriage. Ordering responsible child-birthing and raising? Oh yes. Huge public reason to encourage that behavior at the expense of other behavior.

With that in mind, you’ve misunderstood and misidentified the public policy of why we have publicly-recognized marriage at all.[/quote]

While you stated that he did not give an adequate definition of marriage you did not state what an adequate definition was ?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And we have come to the heart of the issue.

[/quote]

Not really. There are many good reasons not to change the definition of marriage. That’s just one.

See Burke. Buggery laws have been in existence in the civilised world for half a millenia. Before that they were prosecuted under ecclesiastical laws. Civilised societies have always considered sodomy an abhorrent and unnatural act. It’s condemned as such in the bible. I’m not convinced that leftists and radical libertarians of the last 50 years have more wisdom in this regard than that accumulated over centuries and expressed unequivocally in the bible.

I didn’t say that was the grounds for my opposition.

[quote]
The second adjective, “unnatural,” is not true: it is entirely natural in that it is something which certain men and women–creatures of nature, mind you–do.

It occurs naturally in the animal world as well: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia [/quote]

Yeah, I expected that response. Chimpanzees bugger their children too. I contend it is unnatural for humans to do so.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[/quote]

It poses a threat to the civil society in that it condones homosexuality and sodomy - an abhorrent and unnatural act.

[quote]

I personally believe that this is the honest reason that people are opposed to gay marriage–their opinion that it condones homosexuality and sodomy - and that this is an abhorrent and an unnatural act.

While I agree that you have the right to hold this opinion, I do not think the state is entitled to share your opinion without running afoul of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. And even absent First Amendment and Equal Protection problems, as a matter of policy I don’t see that the state has any legitimate, non-religuous based interest in declaring that homosexuality is “abhorrent and unnatural.”

I see Marriage as a Legal/ Religious contract Religious in the Marriage and Legal is the dissolution of the Marriage . Marriage also gives spouses special rights and tax breaks .

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I personally believe that this is the honest reason that people are opposed to gay marriage–their opinion that it condones homosexuality and sodomy - and that this is an abhorrent and an unnatural act.

[/quote]

As I said above, there are many reasons and that’s just one.

Not sure how it relates to the First Amendment?

[quote]
And even absent First Amendment and Equal Protection problems, as a matter of policy I don’t see that the state has any legitimate, non-religuous based interest in declaring that homosexuality is “abhorrent and unnatural.” [/quote]

I disagree. And even if I didn’t, there is no reason why the state shouldn’t legislate based on religious grounds. Separation of church and state has no basis in the Declaration or Constitution.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It poses a threat to the civil society in that it condones homosexuality and sodomy - an abhorrent and unnatural act.

[/quote]

And we have come to the heart of the issue.

[/quote]

Well, the heart of your discussion with sexmachine, maybe.

I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the offspring issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages
[/quote]

But the state should recognize those marriage, is what you’re saying.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages
[/quote]

But the state should recognize those marriage, is what you’re saying.[/quote]

yes, the state’s role in the marriage is the dissolution , that is it

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages
[/quote]

But the state should recognize those marriage, is what you’re saying.[/quote]

yes
[/quote]

And that is the logical, and CONSISTENT, conclusion to pro-homosexual marriage arguments.

Of course now I’d have to ask, if your state definition could theoretically include the entire consenting US adult population being in one great big marriage…Why even support state recognition? You just created a status, undefined by anything but “consenting adult,” simply to create a status…Besides, it already exists. It’s simply an adult US citizen.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages
[/quote]

But the state should recognize those marriage, is what you’re saying.[/quote]

yes
[/quote]

And that is the logical, and CONSISTENT, conclusion to pro-homosexual marriage arguments.

Of course now I’d have to ask, if your state definition could theoretically include the entire consenting US adult population being in one great big marriage…Why even support state recognition? You just created a status, undefined by anything but “consenting adult,” simply to create a status…Besides, it already exists. It’s simply an adult US citizen.
[/quote]

If any one would consent to a marriage of any type they would also concede that 1/2 of their earnings ,savings and equity could be in question

I think your scenario about every body marrying every body is rediculous

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Not sure how it relates to the First Amendment?

[quote]
And even absent First Amendment and Equal Protection problems, as a matter of policy I don’t see that the state has any legitimate, non-religuous based interest in declaring that homosexuality is “abhorrent and unnatural.” [/quote]

I disagree. And even if I didn’t, there is no reason why the state shouldn’t legislate based on religious grounds. Separation of church and state has no basis in the Declaration or Constitution.[/quote]

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits a state from promoting one religious tenet over another or over non-religous tenets unless the state has a legitimate secular interest in doing so.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If any one would consent to a marriage of any type they would also concede that 1/2 of their earnings ,savings and equity could be in question

I think your scenario about every body marrying every body is rediculous
[/quote]

Hey, your definition of marriage allows for it.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think denying to consenting adults the right to marry is nothing short of denying some one the right to practice their Religion [/quote]

Cool, so you’re down with the state recognizing five person marriages. Two gay brothers marrying (hey, the kids issues is absent). Or, an online network of 20 single moms consenting to a non-romantic marriage status. [/quote]

Yes , I think if there were no tax breaks for married people you would eliminate an lot of unusual marriages
[/quote]

But the state should recognize those marriage, is what you’re saying.[/quote]

yes, the state’s role in the marriage is the dissolution , that is it
[/quote]

So, it should recognize them. SMH, is this your take?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If any one would consent to a marriage of any type they would also concede that 1/2 of their earnings ,savings and equity could be in question

I think your scenario about every body marrying every body is rediculous
[/quote]

Hey, your definition of marriage allows for it. [/quote]

it is ok with me

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If any one would consent to a marriage of any type they would also concede that 1/2 of their earnings ,savings and equity could be in question

I think your scenario about every body marrying every body is rediculous
[/quote]

Hey, your definition of marriage allows for it. [/quote]

it is ok with me
[/quote]

No surprise there. Thanks for your candor.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

If any one would consent to a marriage of any type they would also concede that 1/2 of their earnings ,savings and equity could be in question

I think your scenario about every body marrying every body is rediculous
[/quote]

Hey, your definition of marriage allows for it. [/quote]

it is ok with me
[/quote]

I think your scenario is away to demagogue this thread