Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[Yup!]

Again, arguing completely different points. Incest and polygamy are incomparable to gay rights

100 years ago, I bet it would have been lumped into the same category. I'm fast forwarding another 100 years.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Again, arguing completely different points. Incest and polygamy are incomparable to gay rights

This is a fair question. If you are going to throw out a millennia-old definition and replace it, you have to have something to replace it with, and then you have to justify your new definition. Otherwise, we have a free-for-all. You aren't simply dealing with rights for one segment (arguably one subset of one segment) of the population, you are throwing out a truly ancient standard, which is tantamount to creating a vacuum. How do you deal with this?

 

[thebishopp]

100 years ago, I bet it would have been lumped into the same category. I'm fast forwarding another 100 years.

I would have to agree. There was a time when incest was perfectly acceptable (and often practiced especially by the "upper echelon" of society - like royalty for example).

Polygamy was also acceptable. In fact the bible itself has more than just a couple examples of such and no where does it say that "god" changed the "rules" about that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would have to agree. There was a time when incest was perfectly acceptable (and often practiced especially by the "upper echelon" of society - like royalty for example).

Polygamy was also acceptable. In fact the bible itself has more than just a couple examples of such and no where does it say that "god" changed the "rules" about that.

The theologian would generally argue that the rules had always been one man/one woman as evidenced by Adam being given only one choice in the beginning, suggesting that because it was socially acceptable, that does not mean that polygamy was theologically acceptable, and then they would jump to the New Testament standards which call for leaders to the the 'husband of one wife' and other suggestions that I would have to review that this is the acceptable standard.

In terms of practical history, I would return to my previous statement regarding polygamy and the general shortage of men generally going hand in hand.

That said, my principal concern is still the dangers of opening the door to redefining language for the previously mentioned reasons.

 

[Pooty22]

This is a fair question. If you are going to throw out a millennia-old definition and replace it, you have to have something to replace it with, and then you have to justify your new definition. Otherwise, we have a free-for-all. You aren't simply dealing with rights for one segment (arguably one subset of one segment) of the population, you are throwing out a truly ancient standard, which is tantamount to creating a vacuum. How do you deal with this?

Another question to consider is when, where and why did this standard originate? Because Christianity and Catholicism took over Europe?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Another question to consider is when, where and why did this standard originate? Because Christianity and Catholicism took over Europe?

It seems that the general arrangement of marriage has been far from exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Still, the point at issue is that if today you intend to pull the rug out from under the system, how do you intend to stabilize it. That question absolutely must be answered before acting.

 

[IndyGal65]

<sigh> ... Okay, how about two consenting non-related adults. Geesh.

 

[IndyDave1776]

<sigh> ... Okay, how about two consenting non-related adults. Geesh.

That would be a workable standard, but upon what do you base it? How are you going to justify that you should be able to have the arrangement of your choice, but Warren Jeffs shouldn't? No, I am not setting you up for a slippery-slope argument, just that I am satisfied that arbitrary law should not exist, therefore there must be a justification for the standard. If we throw out the existing definition, how do we justify changing it to include only combinations of two consenting adults? How do we hold that standard without setting up a field day in court for Warren and Company?

 

[Pooty22]

The theologian would generally argue that the rules had always been one man/one woman as evidenced by Adam being given only one choice in the beginning, suggesting that because it was socially acceptable, that does not mean that polygamy was theologically acceptable, and then they would jump to the New Testament standards which call for leaders to the the 'husband of one wife' and other suggestions that I would have to review that this is the acceptable standard.

In terms of practical history, I would return to my previous statement regarding polygamy and the general shortage of men generally going hand in hand.

That said, my principal concern is still the dangers of opening the door to redefining language for the previously mentioned reasons.

This is the Webster definition of marriage:*(1)*:*the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law*(2)*:*the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Looks to me like it's already been redefined.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is the Webster definition of marriage:*(1)*:*the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law*(2)*:*the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Looks to me like it's already been redefined.

I don't think that the law is changed by a publishing house.

 

[Yup!]

<sigh> ... Okay, how about two consenting non-related adults. Geesh.

Why does it have to be two?
Why does it have to be non-related?

I'm certain incest and polygamy exist in our culture today. It is not socially acceptable, but neither was homosexuality. So as we move forward and accept everyone, the folks who today live, hiding their incestual relationships, love each other. They want to be with each other for the rest of their lives, and they want to each have health Insurance as defined by being a "spouse"

If we are truly embracing the notion that what you do sexually is your business, why limit it to 2 consenting, non-related adults?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I will have to come back later. I didn't realize how late it is and I have to be in southern Tennessee by 08:00! Good night to all!

 

[Pooty22]

I don't think that the law is changed by a publishing house.

Yes but the publishing house reflects contemporary understanding of the English language, which, correct me if I'm wrong, affects the way we interpret law.

 

[foszoe]

What I find interesting about those who scream about how gay marriage is being forced into their churches, which tramples their rights to the free exercise of religion, when there IS a church, of some description, that is willing to perform weddings for gay couples, they have no trouble whatsoever in trampling the rights to free exercise of that religion, as if if it isn't a Christian marriage of their denomination, then it's just not to be gifted the term marriage. All those Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Pagans, all of their marriages aren't "godly", therefore our government can't recognize them because that would affect my religion.

You must be more patient than I. I don't listen to those who scream on either side of an issue.

I admit I might not be following your thoughts too well because there are a lot of commas and few periods and I am not intellectually able to be sure of myself.

Do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Pagans all have religious ceremonies that unite, for the lack of a better term, homosexual couples?

 

[foszoe]

Again, arguing completely different points. Incest and polygamy are incomparable to gay rights

You asserted it, but I would be interested in how you support the assertion?

 

[CathyInBlue]

The question is, "Are there any religious organizations willing to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples, but whose free exercise of religion is thwarted by people freely exercising their religion to be against gays?"

 

[IndyGal65]

Oh dear god, this is giving me a freakin' headache.

 

[zebov]

<sigh> ... Okay, how about two consenting non-related adults. Geesh.

This is actually an interesting philosophical question that I'd really like to hear your opinion on more. Why do you put the requirement that they cannot be related? I'm serious here, and trying to ask as kindly as possible. I'm not trying to fight you or anything, just wanting to help flesh out your view so neither side is misinformed.

(Just for full disclosure, I've actually tried my best to stay out of the discussion on this topic. I'm quite libertarian from a federal government perspective, and tend to side with freedom of association, though I haven't really thought too much about what a homosexual union should be called from a legal perspective so am interested in both sides of the argument here. I'll also share that I am a Christian and thus find adultery, lying, stealing, coveting, the love of money, lust, and homosexual activity sinful. Just trying to be open.)

 

[joshualee49]

Interesting read...

My belief system makes me biased against homosexual marriage. That being said, I can step out of that system to look at things purely objectively. While someone who is homosexual can make the arguments above and have it seem perfectly understandable and normal rationale to them, folks of a different opinion have a hard time with it. I like the point made about drawing a line. If we are talking PURELY about a consenting adult's right to "marry", legally or spiritually, another consenting adult with absolutely no other criteria - that's one thing. I think that's what you would have to do. Otherwise when the homosexuals win the battle, the next unrepresented segment of the population will step up to the plate. Be it incest, polygamy, what have you. If the institution of marriage is such a novel concept these days, it really worries me just how far the culture is going to take things....

I suppose I'm old fashioned that way. I believe in tradition. I have no ill will toward anyone involved in this conversation. The whole notion is just lost on me, I suppose.

Seriously. Think about it. There was a time that the mere notion of homosexuality would get a person put to death. Today, it's generally accepted. What about tomorrow? A hundred years from now?

Sometimes re-writing tradition for the sake of appeasing a segment of the culture doesn't seem very prudent. If that is the future, tradition is pretty much useless as it will just be re-written in a little while anyway...

 

[IndyGal65]

This is actually an interesting philosophical question that I'd really like to hear your opinion on more. Why do you put the requirement that they cannot be related? I'm serious here, and trying to ask as kindly as possible. I'm not trying to fight you or anything, just wanting to help flesh out your view so neither side is misinformed.

(Just for full disclosure, I've actually tried my best to stay out of the discussion on this topic. I'm quite libertarian from a federal government perspective, and tend to side with freedom of association, though I haven't really thought too much about what a homosexual union should be called from a legal perspective so am interested in both sides of the argument here. I'll also share that I am a Christian and thus find adultery, lying, stealing, coveting, the love of money, lust, and homosexual activity sinful. Just trying to be open.)

Because someone else asked why a father couldn't marry his daughter or some such nonsense, which I feel is a mockery of our situation. It doesn't matter what I say as it will be dissected to death and quite frankly this whole thing is exasperating. I would love to marry, or have a civil union, whatever keeps people's panties from getting in a bunch, my partner of 22 years. I don't mean to come off as an ass, because I think you are asking a genuine question. I'm just so tired of having my life and our relationship compared to and called "sinful" behavior.