The gay marriage bill was passed in the Minnesota state Senate this
@Worf --"I'll leave the easy answers for you to
find."In other words, you can't actually answer the
questions yourself.Duly noted. :-)
amazondoc:I'll leave the easy answers for you to find.
That's how beliefs are formed. There is harm, and
@Chris: Besides just being a silly question with more yelling (capital letters)
then actually insight, you think you've got a new approach from your radio
entertainers?How many siblings have asked for the right to be
married to another sibling for any reason? I'll wait.As a
sibling you aren't being kept out of hospital rooms of the one you love
because your not related. If you're the only other relative you can also
inherit, and make decisions for a sibling.We should at least give
people who are in love the same treatment as a sibling.Bigotry is
the only defense.
@Worf --"Bigot? I just don't excuse certain
behaviors."I tend to not excuse behaviors which deliberately
cause harm to others. Otherwise, it's generally none of my business.How does homosexuality harm anyone?Also, earlier you said:
"True love would not promote this."How is true love
incompatible with gay marriage?
@worf apparently neither does Contrarius, so what would be your
Contrarius:Bigot? I just don't excuse certain behaviors.
@lost in DC --"traditional marriage has sustained the human race
for millenia"Which "traditional" marriage would that be?
-- the polygamy of Biblical times? -- the same-sex marriages
celebrated by at least two Roman EMPERORS? -- the polyandrous marriages of
Tibet, Sparta, and the Inuit? -- the arranged marriages of the Orient, in
which multiple concubines were often expected? -- the incestuous
relationships between Abraham and Sarah, Nachor and Melcha, Lot and his
Daughters, or Amram and Jochabed from the Bible? -- the still-widespread
child marriages, in which children and even infants are married to each other?
-- the conjugal slavery still practiced in parts of Asia and Africa? Exactly which tradition did you have in mind?"once you
start changing the definition, you need to be open to ANYTHING ANY consenting
adults want."You can repeat this claim as many times as you want
-- but that won't ever make your claim true. It simply isn't. The courts have already proven that it isn't true, and they
understand the differences."if I recall correctly it's 16
in the UK, and 14 in Columbia"The age of consent is already 16
in 30 US states -- more than half of them.
@lostsince the false notion of "the traditional family" actually
only dates back at most in our culture to the 1880's and that the view held
by Christian’s of the traditional family is not even universally held to
this day, and the fact that our system does not work on the notion that people
must prove they have a right to access to our social institutions in our country
but rather those that seek to restrict such access must prove why they should be
denied that access, I can see why you went with the bait and switch tactic
George,I have no need to argue against something that has worked well for
millenia - the shoe is on the other foot. As traditional marriage has sustained
the human race for millenia, there needs to be good reason to change it - and
none has been presented.contrarious,Nope, once you start
changing the definition, you need to be open to ANYTHING ANY consenting adults
want. yeah, ban the child brides, but you cannot ban polygamy or polyandry if
you are changing the definition of marriage.and child labor
violations is another topic.but then, what constitutes age of
consent and who decides that?if I recall correctly it's 16 in
the UK, and 14 in Columbia - so most of those cases deemed abuse would not be
deemed abuse under other consent laws - remember, YOU brought other
nations' laws into the discussion.so again, if you are changing
the definition to be more "inclusive" you need to include MUUUUCH more.
@lost in DC --"you are rejecting an entire class based on the
actions of one or two."Nope.I -- and both US and
Canadian courts as well -- am supporting the long-established legal principle
that public safety is a valid reason for limiting personal rights.This isn't a case of "one or two" bad incidents. Heck, just a few
weeks ago there was an article right here in the DN about yet another case of
child labor abuses by polygamists right in Utah. Polygamy creates a
big risk to women and children. That's a simple -- and proven -- fact of
life."BTW, we are not subject to Canadian law."American courts say basically the same thing. Try it for yourself, if you
don't believe it. ;-)"you have to accept ANY definition
that ANYONE wants, polygamists, siblings, step-parents, anyone."Only in your dreams. Fortunately, the American people, the
legislature, and the courts all know better than that.@worf--"True love would not promote this."Tsk, Worf.Only a bigot would claim that homosexuals are somehow incapable of
feeling true love.And I know that you wouldn't want to think of
yourself as a bigot.Right?
@lostSo then you admit that you are trying to distract and place on the
defence rather than present your case based on the merits, thanks for at being
honest for once. Being able to effectively refute your comments and therefore
reject them as false only shows the lack of their merit.
Georgeyou and your ilk reject the arguments against gay marriage. So why
bother?Contrarius,you are rejecting an entire class based on
the actions of one or two. BTW, we are not subject to Canadian law.No, when you start chaing the definition of marriage, you have to accept ANY
definition that ANYONE wants, polygamists, siblings, step-parents, anyone.
@lost in dc I suppose you are incapable of arguing your opposition to gay
marriage on its own merits rather than bringing in other forms of marriage to
try to dilute the conversation. Rather then try to place contrarua on the
defense by bring in other forms of marriage why don’t you explain your
opposition to gay marriage?
Contrarius:True love would not promote this.No
@lost in DC --"I guess you then strongly support polygamous and
polyandrous relationships."Guessing is a bad habit. ;-)Unlike gay marriage, oolygamy has very concrete, recognized dangers in our
society. To illustrate -- a group of Canadian polygamists recently
sued for marriage rights in Canada. British Columbia's Supreme Court ruled
against them, and reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's ban on
polygamy. In the court's decision, the Chief Justice noted that
"women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical
and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children
from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less
likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and
behavioral problems." Risks to public safety have always been a
valid legal reason for restricting individual rights. For instance, that's
the reason why drunk driving is illegal:Car + drunk driver = high
risk of injurySimilarly, the combination of polygamy with societies
which are not perfectly egalitarian (any current human society) creates a high
risk of abuse and/or mistreatment for women and children. Therefore, public
safety concerns dictate that polygamy should remain illegal.
Contrarius,I guess you then strongly support polygamous and polyandrous
@worf --"Contrarius--Your truth is reason to not support
it."I am saddened to hear that you do not support love,
commitment, stability, home-building, family, and raising children together in
loving homes. These are essential factors in any society, and their
spread should be encouraged by everyone.
Contrarius--Your truth is reason to not support it.
@contrariusYou really do not expect Chris to be truthful right?
@Chris B --"And remember, marriage has NOTHING to do with sex,
which is what our liberal friends always tell me on these boards."That isn't actually true at all. Please, at least *try* to be truthful
when you post a comment.What we do tell you is that marriage is
about much more than JUST sex. It's about love, and commitment, and
stability, and home-building, and family, and raising children together, and all
*sorts* of things. You can't narrow it down to just one single thing or
another.Congratulations to Minnesota. Illinois next. Then the
Supreme Court decisions will come out in June. I can't wait!
If gay marriage is legal then so should marriage between 2 siblings.And remember, marriage has NOTHING to do with sex, which is what our liberal
friends always tell me on these boards.So please don't be
hypocritical in defending gay marriage and yet not supporting marriage between 2
adult family members.There are marriages without sex and sex
can/does happen outside of marriage. So any sexual issues really have no place
for reason not to allow 2 family members to wed.