[DanDaMan]

What silly man convinced you murder and or violence against others was to be illegal?

Not the big guy in the sky, that's for sure.

Yes, but how is that somehow superior to the laws of the Creator that never change versus that of men where every day men argue that men can give and take the law as they please?

Churches are free to select whatever adoptive parents they like.

False. In Britain they had to get out of the adoption services because they did not treat two men as the equal of a mother and father.
This is also happening in America.

[ThereBeDragons]

Yes, but how is that somehow superior to the laws of the Creator that never change versus that of men where every day men argue that men can give and take the law as they please?

I don't know what the laws of the Creator are, since he hasn't come down and told me.

I do know what other people say they are, but that isn't as convincing.

False. In Britain they had to get out of the adoption services because they did not treat two men as the equal of a mother and father. This is also happening in America.

This could be true, but could I get a link to that anyway? And regardless, England has no separation of church and state; the state religion is the Church of England and the head of the church is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, so in that sense the state in England can command churches in a way that the USFG cannot.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
Yes, but how is that somehow superior to the laws of the Creator that never change versus that of men where every day men argue that men can give and take the law as they please?

I don't know what the laws of the Creator are, since he hasn't come down and told me.

I do know what other people say they are, but that isn't as convincing.

He never will. The point I am trying to make and which is totally alien and beyond your capability to currently understand is that the law of men is plastic and God's laws are not.

Your requested link...

Catholic charities breaking law on homosexual adoption
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ption.html

[PBVBROOK]

Unfortunatley, radicals constantly attack the rights of the religious and want to force churches to do adoptions and weddings for homosexuals.

This is just untrue. There is absolutely NO move to require churches to perform Gay marriages.

To the extent that churches participate in federal programs (i.e. providing adoption services AND TAKING GOVERNMENT MONEY) they can comply with the federal or state laws or stop taking the money. That simple.

You mention GB. This is nothing but a red herring. You are (for what it is worth) an American. This is a discussion about US politics. Please confine yourself to the matter at hand.

You asked me to remind you about George Washington's slaves. You need only to look it up if you don't believe me or wish to learn.

You would be wise to stop resting your arguements on some idealized notion of what the founders were about doing. They were remarkable people but they knew that they were making laws that would have to eventually be changed.

[DanDaMan]

This is just untrue. There is absolutely NO move to require churches to perform Gay marriages.

There will be. Not unlike homosexuals suing, for an example, a photographer for refusing to photograph their "marriage".

To the extent that churches participate in federal programs (i.e. providing adoption services AND TAKING GOVERNMENT MONEY) they can comply with the federal or state laws or stop taking the money. That simple.

You mention GB. This is nothing but a red herring. You are (for what it is worth) an American. This is a discussion about US politics. Please confine yourself to the matter at hand.

You asked me to remind you about George Washington's slaves. You need only to look it up if you don't believe me or wish to learn.

I did. the problem is everyone copies the modern liberal pedophile haven site Wiki for their information. I get very little as to the "why".

[Melodramatic]

What silly man convinced you murder and or violence against others was to be illegal?

Its this strange guy who lives in my mirror. however most of my political beliefs are based of my religious belief, but my religious belief is more philosophical then religious. anyway I can ask you the same question, who told you that murder is wrong? the guy who wrote the bible to control people politically? or maybe that skinny socialist with the brown beard you love so much?

I have to lean towards the state taking children away from heroin addicts.

I lean towards taking children away from you, but you don't making silly laws.

False. In Britain they had to get out of the adoption services because they did not treat two men as the equal of a mother and father.

as I said I don't believe in laws prohibiting private organization from discriminating. i believe that if for some stupid reason the government sponsors an organization it must not discriminate.

homosexuals suing, for an example, a photographer for refusing to photograph their "marriage".

Agreed that is wrong. he is a private entity and is entitiled to his opinion. public entities are required to treat people equally, and in the case of marriage, while the actual ritual is private, the legal contract is public.

I don't know what the laws of the Creator are, since he hasn't come down and told me.

If he would have I probably wouldn't believe he was the creator .

[DanDaMan]

"I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people, who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority; and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.18"

Washington grew up with slaves because that was normal at the time.
Clearly it was unusual times for all.

Let's not forget the third man from the bow is a black man...

[PBVBROOK]

^^ Remember DDM. Washington was a very wealthy man. He could have chosen to free his slaves anytime he wanted. He could have freed them and then paid them as laborers. He talked a good game but did not play very well. Notice that he did not see fit to free his slaves in his own lifetime or that of his wife. They were just too darned profitable and handy around the house.

Suppose you owned 315 slaves DDM. If you chose to free them years after your death, do you think that you should get some kind of 'credit' for that?

Look what you posted. Look at the quote from Washington and answer this question. Washington said that about slavery 13 years before he died. If he was such a moral person, why did he not free his own slaves? He could have. He could have employed them for very little. Yet he didn't.

J

efferson: "He wrote about slavery, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

And this was true. Jefferson mortgaged hois 600 slaves and could not sell them. He freed only 5 of his slaves. (Two his mixed race children by Sally Hemmings.) Upon his death the rest of them were auctioned on the steps of Montacello to settle his debts.

I give Jefferson more credit than most. At least he proposed legislation (on numerous occasions) to abolish slavery in Virginia. He also, as President, banned the slave trade. (1807)

So here's the deal DDM. If they knew it was wrong, why didn't free their own slaves?

On edit: Your comment about the black man in the boat is pretty funny is a groaning kind of way. For many years it was thought that this was a slave named Prince Whipple. He was owned by William Whipple (signeer of the declaration of independence) and accompanied him in the war. He was not "freed" as a result. He did finally get his freedom 7 years after the war. He died at 30 and was burried in a paupers grave not far from his master William Whipple's magnificent monument.

Care to try another zinger DDM?

[BassHole]

Washington grew up with slaves because that was normal at the time.

In that case, it is a double-standard to assume that the US Constitution, for example, is based on "universal truths" - you are clearly accepting that times change; i.e. moral relativism.

[Zerogouki]

I don't think it is an accident that regardless of civilization or time, this has largely been considered abhorent

False predicate. The taboo against incest is a relatively recent phenomenon (<100 years), and is still mostly a Western thing.

the Government SHOULD keep it outlawed in specific legislation because I don't want my tax dollars in my universal healthcare subsidizing evolutionary stupidity.

The solution, then, is to stop spending tax money on medical care, not to ban intrafamilial marriage.

You have it backward. It is not a question of legalizing a religious institution. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in the eyes of the law. In every state marriage is a secular institution. It is licensed and sanctioned by the state

This has been the case in the US for less than 150 years. When the country was founded, marriage was purely a religious institution. The "marriage license" was invented in the wake of the Civil War as a means of preventing interracial marriages. Also, you are using the "is=ought" fallacy.

They are denied equal access to the benefits of their government.

1) This is not true. As has been pointed out, gay men can still marry women and lesbians can still marry men.

I know that in some parts of the world it's secular, and in the USA it's supposed to be.

No. In the USA, it's NOT supposed to be anything of the sort.

having a license to drive does nothing to your ability to drive (but limit it) as does a marriage license regulated by the state. It's pointless regulation.

Having a license to drive proves that you are a competent enough driver to use the same public (i.e., state-owned) roads as everyone else. The point is to keep unsafe drivers from endangering the lives of everyone else.

In OUR society it is and always has been a civil institution.

Nope. Civil War, interracial marriage, is=ought fallacy, etc.

Either there is marriage as an institution or there is not.

This would imply that there is no difference between religious institutions and secular ones, which is bullshit.

If, of course you really believe that there should be no such thing as marriage then edit your rambling post to simply this: I don't believe there should be any such thing as state recognized marriage.

Flaw in argument spotted.

The reason supporting gay marriage does not imply one ought to support polygamous marriage is that polygamous marriage raises several legal questions to the nature of divorce (if somebody is married to each spouse separately, or if they are all married together; what if somebody wants to be divorced from one spouse but not all spouses but they other spouses don't want to be divorced from that spouse, etc), inheritance, power of attorney (barring any instructions, who gets to make life or death decisions?), children (who has custody over a child - the biological parents or the marriage as a whole?) that would radically redefine the American concept of marriage legally speaking. While gay marriage is culturally revolutionary, it is not legally revolutionary. It would not require modification to the legal rights and benefits of marriage. I have nothing against polyamorous people; how a person wants to live their life is their business. But the legality of marriage does not mesh with more than two partners.

This is all contingent on the assumption that marriage should be a legal concept, which is not universally held.

Government protects the contractual aspects of marriage.

Say what now? Government actually enforces all of that honor and obey through sickness and health stuff? Since when?

The government is involved because the vast majority of voters want them involved.

Nazi Germany killed 6 million Jews because the voters wanted it that way; ergo, that makes it right? I disagree.

But does one type, by example, let's say lesbians, show a father is unnecessary for the raising of a child? Yes.

That's because a father technically is unnecessary.

As for your complaint that it risks them thinking the other gender parent is unimporant, no doubt, but I grew up thinking a father is unimportant, and I've had a step father my whole life. Never did know my father.

my mother and my brother's father divorced because they just felt they were best off friends.

DUDE.



Are you, like, my alternate personality that only emerges and uses my computer when I'm sleeping?

Marriage, in the European legal tradition, descends from the secular Roman concept of marriage, which had nothing to do with religion. I suppose it could be argued that European marriage also has to do with Jewish marriage, but, legally, speaking, the tradition is Roman. The Church took the role from the state after the collapse of the Western Empire.

That might be relevant... if we were living in ancient Rome!

My friend offered a "service" to my lesbian friends and they did have a child.

That lucky bastard! Did he "service" both of them, or just one? If both, was it at the same time?

I'll entertain that by adding that the Founding fathers of the North never discriminated by color.

of the North

NORTH

Bullshit. Many of the "founding fathers" (God, I hate that term) still kept slaves (Including George Washington).

They cant just wake up and say "I'm not going to be black today". Homosexuals can though. They can go out and be in the closet and experince no discrimination whatsoever! They can live their entire life and never be a "homosexual".

Homosexuality is a controllable behavior of either gender. We know this because they can be in the closet all their lives and even marry the opposite sex.

You still obviously have no idea what being homosexual actually means, do you? It's an ATTRACTION, NOT A BEHAVIOR. I'm straight because I'm attracted to females, not because I've ever actually fucked one. Similarly, a homosexual who stays in the closet his/her entire life and even marries someone of the opposite sex is still a homosexual. They're just pretending otherwise.

What silly man convinced you murder and or violence against others was to be illegal?

Don't refer to my mom as a man.

Ever.

I have to lean towards the state taking children away from heroin addicts.

The average heroin addict would have been a better parent than my stepfather ever was... and nobody rescued me from him.

False. In Britain...

What happens in Britain stays in Britain

the law of men is plastic and God's laws are not.

...which is why the laws of men are better. Men learn from their mistakes. God apparently doesn't.

[PBVBROOK]

Nazi Germany killed 6 million Jews because the voters wanted it that way; ergo, that makes it right? I disagree.

Have you been drinking? You can do much better than this. You usually do not make statements as absurd as this. I think you should remember Godwin's Rule.

[DanDaMan]

An interesting fact about slavery...

Who was the first slave owner in the US?

Surprisingly the first slave owner was Mr Anthony Johnson, of Northampton, Virginia, who was himself a black African. His slave was called John Casor, who was the first slave for life and also a fellow black African.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_f ... _in_the_US

[Homer]

Homosexual Marriages - No
Polygamy - No.
Incest - No.

[PBVBROOK]

Who was the first slave owner in the US?

Surprisingly the first slave owner was Mr Anthony Johnson, of Northampton, Virginia, who was himself a black African. His slave was called John Casor, who was the first slave for life and also a fellow black African.

Don't feed the troll. This is completely off-topic.

[Zerogouki]

Have you been drinking?

Yes. I had two Mike's Hard Limes that day, both of them AFTER I was done posting on PoFo.

Don't feed the troll. This is completely off-topic.

Not only that, but he ignores the part that says...

The answer above is not historically correct.

Dan is failing pretty epically here.

[William_H_Dougherty]

WTF: I was writing a response to like the initial question and I noticed people are talking about Nazis and Slavery!

I support Gay Marriage now that it has become Law in Canada. I also believe that the Federal Government should have no say on this issue. They don't according to the Constitution (sole jurisdiction of the provinces) but I'm not even sure the provinces should.

Yes I am against polygamy and yes I am concerned that by legalizing same sex marriage we have opened the door to said polygamy. However, at the end of the day, considering that it wasn't SSM that I was concerned about, I suppose fear of a completely different reform is a poor reason to deny it to gay couples.

- WHD

P.S. I think the government should stay out of this issue except as it concerns DanTheMan, who should be forced at gunpoint into a gay polygamous marriage .

[legalboxerbriefs]

Polygamy is substantively different from same-sex marriage in a number of ways, and I think it is a mistake to equate support for one as support for the other. For example, while I support marriage equality, I do not believe in expanding marriage to include more than two people.

Indeed, monogamy, and the stigma of being unfaithful to one’s loved one, developed because of the jealousy that can arise. Furthermore, polygamy with an unlimited number of partners greatly enhances the likelihood that the institution of marriage might be exploited for questionable purposes, such as legal protection from testifying in court, for procuring a green card, or for the various tax benefits. (While, granted, two-person marriages can be exploited for this purpose, the ability to abuse marriage for the purpose of these benefits is greatly enhanced by having no limit on the number of married partners one can have.) If we classify the state interest in marriage as that of child-rearing or the stability of the family unit, we find that there is a much more difficult argument to make when it comes to polygamous or incestuous relationships.

First, as I noted earlier, polygamous relationships tend to be less stable than monogamous ones — due to jealousy and the expanded possibility of their exploitation. Furthermore, as we are all aware, it is possible for people to fall out of love. If this is true for two people, we can imagine that it would be even more likely once we involve even more people. If Bill, Sally, and Sasha all love each other when they get married, but then Sally stops loving Sasha, but still loves Bill and Sasha still loves Sally and Bill, the entire family unit becomes imperiled. As you can see, the likelihood increases not only with the number of persons in a relationship, but with the number of “connections” within it. That is, it can’t simply be that Bill must love Sally and Sasha, but Sasha must love Sally and Bill, and and Sally must love Bill and Sasha. Without all persons in such a relationship loving all other persons, the family will not function cohesively. As a result, such families are FAR more likely to dissolve.

Second, because of the exponentially more difficult nature of polygamous divorces, any children entrusted to polygamous parents would suffer greatly should that family dissolve. While it is feasible for many divorced monogamous parents to share custody of their children, this would either simply not be the case at all, or it would involve the constant shuffling-around of the child or children. This is not conducive to the emotional or developmental health of children.

According to psychological research: “A shift from a monogamous to a polygamous family system that occurs when a new spouse is added to the family would constitute just the kind of major systemic disruption that would pose a major challenge to a developing child’s sense of trust, security, and confidence.As family system theories express, these stressors are imposed on children because the functioning of “family members is profoundly interdependent, with changes in one part of the system reverberating in other parts of the system” (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 5).

Though less research has been done on polygamous relationships in societies where polygamy is commonplace, it is important to keep the above quote in mind when considering the legalization of polygamy within the United States — a culture which overwhelmingly rejects polygamy. While certain individuals might attempt to make the argument that same-sex marriage is somehow analogous, the study is quite specific to polygamous families.

Additionally, considerable research has shown that “children of polygamous families experience a higher incidence of marital conflict, family violence, and family disruptions than do children of monogamous families” (Al-Krenawi, 1998; Elbedour, Bart, & Hektner, 2000). Marital conflict, in turn, has a profound negative impact upon children: “In their study of children aged 8 through 18, Buehlar and Gerard (2002) reported that 11% of the variance in children’s maladjustment could be accounted for by marital conflict and ineffective parenting.” (Elbedour, Onwuegbuzie, Caridine, & Abu-Saad 2002). The aforementioned study also notes that such marital conflict will result in “poor social competence, a poorly developed sense of security (Davis, Myers, & Cummings, 1996), poor school achievement (Emery & O’Leary, 1982; Katz & Gottman, 1991), misconduct and aggression (Rutter, 1975), and elevated heart rate reactivity (El-sheikh, 1994)” among children in polygamous families.

Furthermore, because polygamous marriages tend to produce more children than monogamous families, they tend to endure greater financial distress. Furthermore, because of the increased number of children, women in polygamous marriages are less likely to seek employment (Agadjanian and Ezeh (2000)). Financial distress, in turn, tends to produce even more marital conflict. But the familial issues are not limited only to marital stress: studies have demonstrated that financial trouble is correlated with greatly increased likelihood of child neglect or even abuse ((Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995).

Please let me know if you can find such overwhelming evidence against same-sex marriage, which isn’t simply made up by right-wing nutjobs.

[Zerogouki]

"A few people don't have their shit together, so instead, we're going to screw everyone over equally"

Crappy reasoning.

[Negotiator]

I dont see why it should bother me or anyone if homosexuals marry.

Obviously its just like with heterosexuals: They love each other, they want to declare it publically, they want to be faithful to each other for the rest of their lives, they want to care for each other for the rest of their lives, and they want to give each other the special priviledges of a married couple (such as inheritance or that you can visit them in the hospital and so on).

So anyone noticing anything bad or evil in these intentions ? I dont.

I cant see any evil consequences either. Or does anyone here seriously believe homosexuals will marry heterosexually just because they arent allowed to marry heterosexually ?

So what exactly could possibly be the problem ? Except if you have the irresistable urge to tell others how they should live their lifes. Yeah well, I'm sorry, but I dont have that problem.


Of course, there is that book. But is it really enough to just insist on a thing because its written in a book, despite not having any other good reason at all, even worse if its about such a crucial and important thing like love ?

Yeah, the book is very important to me, but in the end its a book. I cant just blindly follow everything written in it. That would make me a blind fanatic. Plus a victim of my own and other peoples poor interpretations of said book.

Plus of course I recently read about a theory these parts of the bible was never targeted at homosexuals at all. They where targeted at certain cults in concurrence to the jewish belief that had homosexual ceremonies. If that is true, I finally understand what the point of these statements in the bible is, after all. Because in themselves, they are simply mysterious. I fail to see any logic in them.

God obviously has created some people bi- or homosexual. Nobody is hurt if two adult homosexuals marry each other. Love is extremely important, especially to christians. Our two laws are both about love - love god more than anything else, and love thy neighbor like thyself.

Therefore I utterly fail to be able to give a good reason why homosexual marriages should be outlawed.

In that case, it is a double-standard to assume that the US Constitution, for example, is based on "universal truths" - you are clearly accepting that times change; i.e. moral relativism.

To me, morality doesnt change.

The core rule of morality is the golden rule: "dont do to others what others shouldnt do to you".

Our interpretation of this rule changes and hopefully improves with time.

And you can say the same thing in a different way, such as: "love thy neighbour as you love yourself".

But the rule itself is quite universal and eternal.

[Zerogouki]

they want to give each other the special priviledges of a married couple (such as inheritance or that you can visit them in the hospital and so on).

These things are not contingent on marriage.

will marry heterosexually just because they arent allowed to marry heterosexually ?

The core rule of morality is the golden rule: "dont do to others what others shouldnt do to you".

That's actually the silver rule...