7 states pass marriage amendments

[glockmail]

Didn’t non-Christians revolt against England? Didn’t people who were not interested in religious issues revolt against England? Weren’t there some people who simply did not like the fact that they were being severely taxed without being adequately represented?

Whatever the stated reason, it was good that the revolution was done and that we are free from England. I question the declaration of independence. Since I have my doubts about the existence of a creator, I doubt that man was endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Perhaps the revolutionaries did the right thing for the wrong reason. Oh well. No one is perfect.

Anyway, getting back to the notion that we should not allow gay marriage because God ordained that marriage is to be limited to couples of the opposite sex is silly. Let us create more limitations and laws based on the Bible. I bet that I could come up with some interesting rules.

.....

It's not easy discussing something with someone who questions something as basic as the DOI, or who's agument for gay marriage is that traditional marraige is "silly". With your train of logic nothing is concrete and anything should be allowed. Perhaps you should marry your hampster.

 

[mattskramer]

It's not easy discussing something with someone who questions something as basic as the DOI, or who's agument for gay marriage is that traditional marraige is "silly". With your train of logic nothing is concrete and anything should be allowed. Perhaps you should marry your hampster.

No. A hamster is not in an equal position of power. Nor does it have the mental capacity to understand marital commitment. It can’t give mutual informed consent. People have different views on ethics. Some people get their ethics from their interpretation of their particular Bible’s translation. Some people get their ethics after considering the wrongs committed in the past. (Rights are discovered from things that we learned to be wrong.)
Other people establish their ethical philosophy in other ways. I’m a moderate libertarian. With few exceptions, I think that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others.

Just because our “founding fathers” wrote some sentences on a piece of paper, it does not mean that those sentences are true. I think that some things that they wrote were insightful and correct but I doubt that other things are correct. The DOC was practically a “pep rally” speech created for the sake of unifying the people in their attempt to break away from England’s rule.

 

[glockmail]

.....

Just because our “founding fathers” wrote some sentences on a piece of paper, it does not mean that those sentences are true. I think that some things that they wrote were insightful and correct but I doubt that other things are correct. The DOC [sic] was practically a “pep rally” speech created for the sake of unifying the people in their attempt to break away from England’s rule.

What part of the DOI is not true?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No. A hamster is not in an equal position of power. Nor does it have the mental capacity to understand marital commitment..

So you think mentally retarded people shouldnt be able to marry?

It can’t give mutual informed consent..

And neither can some people who have diminished mental ability. So, you favor letting same sex marriage fly, but dont want a mental retard to marry ANYONE. Yea, makes sense, coming from the person who doesnt like to deny anything their freedoms and rights. A lady (liberal, of course) recently married her bird.

People have different views on ethics. Some people get their ethics from their interpretation of their particular Bible’s translation. Some people get their ethics after considering the wrongs committed in the past. (Rights are discovered from things that we learned to be wrong.).
Other people establish their ethical philosophy in other ways. I’m a moderate libertarian. With few exceptions, I think that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others...

Marriage is not a right, its a privledge. Your premise is wrong, therefore, your conclusion is wrong.

Just because our “founding fathers” wrote some sentences on a piece of paper, it does not mean that those sentences are true..

You mean like the Constitution?

I think that some things that they wrote were insightful and correct but I doubt that other things are correct. The DOC was practically a “pep rally” speech created for the sake of unifying the people in their attempt to break away from England’s rule.

.

Ha! Go back and re read your history. It was a carefully worded document, and IT ESTABLISHED THE LEGAL PRECEDENT TO WRITE THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[glockmail]

So you think mentally retarded people shouldnt be able to marry?.....

I think they should, but I also think that they should be sterilized first. Otherwise the State may end up taking care of their children.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think they should, but I also think that they should be sterilized first. Otherwise the State may end up taking care of their children.

wow, thats a can of worms. I understand your point, but what about people who are very borderline? who makes the decisiion? What if the retarded person marries a non retard? Then if a divorce, does that mean the retarded person can get custody, or even visitation?? OHHH my head hurts, pass the advil please !

 

[glockmail]

wow, thats a can of worms. I understand your point, but what about people who are very borderline? who makes the decisiion? What if the retarded person marries a non retard? Then if a divorce, does that mean the retarded person can get custody, or even visitation?? OHHH my head hurts, pass the advil please !

I know, it is a can of worms. I dunno where the line should be- probably tied into some current standard of welfare or government funding of retarded. Normally I'm not big on guv'mint intervention but I don't want to pay tax dollars to raise a retarded couples kid when they can't.

If a retarded person marries a normal person then the normal person can take care of the kid.

 

[Matrixx8]

Arguably, refusal to grant homosexuals equal marriage rights is more serious than discrimination -- it is a form of racism.

Consider, for example, the underlying premise of racism: people are seen as members of a group, not as individuals. We see the same attitudes in conservative circles these days against Muslims.

To reject the premise that all people have a right to marriage (i.e. equal treatment before the law) is to reject the idea that all people are equal, regardless of their political, philosophic or group identites. We saw the same thing in the American South with the Jim Crow laws. Blacks were refused equal treatment under the pretense of "separate but equal" laws, which discriminated unabashedly against blacks as a group.

I see very little difference in the current rejection of equality under the marriage laws.

By what standard do people in a free society reject the freedom of some individuals because their views deviate from what the majority seems to consider appropriate? Is that not the basis of racism? Is that not what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? As we know, it did not take long to translate the principle of discrimination against the Jews in Hitler's Germany into the Nazi final solution.

Is that the desired end of those who vote against homosexual marriage? Probably not. But the very act of rejecting individual rights when it comes to civil contracts is a huge step in that direction, IMO. There is only one basis for such views, IMO: religious prejudice.

What's next? Burning homosexuals at the stake?

Cute, seems about right from the country that brought us the crappy art of Van Gogh. Check the dictionary ace, marriage is the union of a man and a woman....period.

I'm not a "country". You must have me confused with one of Douglas Adams' characters.

As for your 1950s definition of marriage, it seems that your understanding of lexicography is on a par with your appreciation of art. Only half of all Americans seem to agree with you today. As someone once said, "the times they are a'changin".