otterinbham 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property. So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions. The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban. As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business? Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so? If 2 people want to set up ANYTHING, I'm ok for that happening, legally. But don't call ANYTHING 'marriage'. Just so you know, I'm ok w/ civil unions. Be it 2 gay partners, or even siblings who live together in their old age, I find no reason to limit their ability to legally set each other up as guardian should 1 end up in the hospital, for example. The brother/ sister thing is an extreme, to make a point. But we also ban 1st cousins from marrying, even though birth abnormalities occur in no greater % than they do w/ the general population. So why not let 1st cousins marry? 2 things here. 1 is the essential basis of a family. It takes 1 man and 1 woman to create an offsping. The foundation of human civilization has been the family. Human beings don't come into this world knowing how to speak, walk, etc....There's a huge committment in resources and energy needed to raise a child. And children with better resources tend to grow up faster and better equipped to take on the world. Doesn't mean that there's only ONE way to raise a child, but why hinder or potentially hinder a child's growth by making a social statement ? 2nd, the union of 2 families is literally the union of 2 bloodlines, coming together to from a direct descendency for the next generation. We can trace our families by whom we marry, who are parents are, etc... And while geneology comes into play here, there's also the very real matter of heirs and ownership of the family. 100's of years of tradition have developed into our working legal system and Government. The family is the basis of how we leave what is ours to the next generation,and when that occurs, you can't help but deal w/ legal matters, and that includes the court system. But if procreation is the sole reason for the state endorsement of marriage, then you suddenly run into any number of problems. Does that mean women should be prohibited from marriage after they undergo menopause? Should men with vasectomies be refused the marriage rite? Should a couple sign a contract promising to bear children, and does the marriage get revoked if they fail to do so within a prescribed period? See how quickly your argument breaks down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property. So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions. The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban. As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business? Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so? If 2 people want to set up ANYTHING, I'm ok for that happening, legally. But don't call ANYTHING 'marriage'. Just so you know, I'm ok w/ civil unions. Be it 2 gay partners, or even siblings who live together in their old age, I find no reason to limit their ability to legally set each other up as guardian should 1 end up in the hospital, for example. The brother/ sister thing is an extreme, to make a point. But we also ban 1st cousins from marrying, even though birth abnormalities occur in no greater % than they do w/ the general population. So why not let 1st cousins marry? 2 things here. 1 is the essential basis of a family. It takes 1 man and 1 woman to create an offsping. The foundation of human civilization has been the family. Human beings don't come into this world knowing how to speak, walk, etc....There's a huge committment in resources and energy needed to raise a child. And children with better resources tend to grow up faster and better equipped to take on the world. Doesn't mean that there's only ONE way to raise a child, but why hinder or potentially hinder a child's growth by making a social statement ? 2nd, the union of 2 families is literally the union of 2 bloodlines, coming together to from a direct descendency for the next generation. We can trace our families by whom we marry, who are parents are, etc... And while geneology comes into play here, there's also the very real matter of heirs and ownership of the family. 100's of years of tradition have developed into our working legal system and Government. The family is the basis of how we leave what is ours to the next generation,and when that occurs, you can't help but deal w/ legal matters, and that includes the court system. But if procreation is the sole reason for the state endorsement of marriage, then you suddenly run into any number of problems. Does that mean women should be prohibited from marriage after they undergo menopause? Should men with vasectomies be refused the marriage rite? Should a couple sign a contract promising to bear children, and does the marriage get revoked if they fail to do so within a prescribed period? See how quickly your argument breaks down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 80 Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. Am I wrong when I say that the bible should have no bearing on our government? This seems like common sense separation of church and state to me. So why should marriage, something handled by the state, have ANYTHING to do with the bible? Someone please explain this one to me. Why should we base anything of today's world on the bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. Am I wrong when I say that the bible should have no bearing on our government? This seems like common sense separation of church and state to me. So why should marriage, something handled by the state, have ANYTHING to do with the bible? Someone please explain this one to me. Why should we base anything of today's world on the bible? Get ready for the hornet's nest on that one. Of course, why do we allow fortune tellers? After all, they're condemned biblically as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. Am I wrong when I say that the bible should have no bearing on our government? This seems like common sense separation of church and state to me. So why should marriage, something handled by the state, have ANYTHING to do with the bible? Someone please explain this one to me. Why should we base anything of today's world on the bible? Get ready for the hornet's nest on that one. Of course, why do we allow fortune tellers? After all, they're condemned biblically as well. Anatomically their are parts of the male anatomy that don't belong in other parts of the male/female anatomy if you get my drift. Hypothetically, if your wife decided to experiment with another woman how would you feel? Forget the perverse answers of as long as I can particpate. Serious answers only. I know how I felt, and still feel even after two weeks to cool down. There was another man too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jared52 4,354 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. I'm gonna ignore the "toss the Bible out" stuff and just comment on this statement. If you think homosexuality is natural, why isn't homosexuality widespread throughout the animal kingdom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. I'm gonna ignore the "toss the Bible out" stuff and just comment on this statement. If you think homosexuality is natural, why isn't homosexuality widespread throughout the animal kingdom? Well, heck. Neither is driving cars, wearing clothes, reading books, drawing pictures, playing the piano, flying airplanes, or using any tools beyond a rock or a stick. Guess we need to outlaw those, too. All that being said, my entire interest in this question is that of a libertarian. You guys who want to ban it upon your idea of what is or isn't natural, or by what is or isn't scripturally prohibited. We could shoot holes in your arguments all day long. My position is simple: If something does not cause absolute harm to others, and as long as it is between two consensual adults, how does the government have a right to intercede? I still have not heard anybody come up with a serious argument otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. I'm gonna ignore the "toss the Bible out" stuff and just comment on this statement. If you think homosexuality is natural, why isn't homosexuality widespread throughout the animal kingdom? Actually, according to the national geographic there are several instances of same gender sex and bisexuality in the wild. National Geographic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. I'm gonna ignore the "toss the Bible out" stuff and just comment on this statement. If you think homosexuality is natural, why isn't homosexuality widespread throughout the animal kingdom? Finally you ask one I know the answer to!! Homosexuality is not widespread throughout the animal kingdom because most animals can lick their own private parts - they don't need a partner! Ding, ding, ding - Gimme 10 pts.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 The bible is the only 'logical' reason there is any stigma at all towards gays getting married. I'm gonna ignore the "toss the Bible out" stuff and just comment on this statement. If you think homosexuality is natural, why isn't homosexuality widespread throughout the animal kingdom? Finally you ask one I know the answer to!! Homosexuality is not widespread throughout the animal kingdom because most animals can lick their own private parts - they don't need a partner! Ding, ding, ding - Gimme 10 pts.! Two old geezers were sitting on a front porch in their rocking chairs when a dog trots up, sits down and starts licking himself. One geezer says to the other, "You know, I wish I could do that." The other geezer says, "Shoot, that dog would bite you....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Two old geezers were sitting on a front porch in their rocking chairs when a dog trots up, sits down and starts licking himself. One geezer says to the other, "You know, I wish I could do that." The other geezer says, "Shoot, that dog would bite you....." Great joke I heard , as told by Lewis Grizzard. Slightly different version, but basically spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 But if procreation is the sole reason for the state endorsement of marriage, then you suddenly run into any number of problems. Does that mean women should be prohibited from marriage after they undergo menopause? Should men with vasectomies be refused the marriage rite? Should a couple sign a contract promising to bear children, and does the marriage get revoked if they fail to do so within a prescribed period? See how quickly your argument breaks down? Keeping bloodlines continuing is a major part of marriage, but not the SOLE purpose in current culture. The basic necessity for procreation is 1 man and 1 woman. That's sex -101. And that gives way to marriage. In none of the exceptions you offer does that equation change. Just minor variations of the basic construct of marriage. No where does my argument break down, as you claim. With "same sex" unions though, there's absolutely zero chance of procreation. Some outside help is required, regardless of male+male or female+female union, for there to be any offspring. Call nature a bigot,if you will, but that's how she works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weglchamp 0 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Procreation can happen without marriage. What are the other (non-religious) purposes of marriage? In other words what advantages do heterosexual couples gain from marriage. They can co-habitat, be committed to each other and raise a family w/o being married. Purely philosophical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.