Why the definition of marriage matters

[Mustapha00]

"Morality", to me, has a religious connotation. If one is not religious, a positive set of behaviors (or a negative one, for that matter) is, I think, "ethical" rather than "moral".
That isn't said to mean that a non-religious person cannot act in a way that religious people would call "moral" or that a religious person cannot act in a way that non-religious people would call "ethical". I've gotten into many an argument over whether an Atheist can be "moral" (I say that they cannot, but they can be "ethical", either positively or negatively- same as a religious person). And it may well be a matter of semantics.
To me, as a religious person, "marriage" is a sacred institution, the union of one man and one woman. Any other arrangement can be recognized civilly (meaning legally), but it should not be referred to as a "marriage" (and, as I said earlier, should not be a matter for the Federal government to regulate).

 

[DeletedUser10415]

To me, as a religious person, "marriage" is a sacred institution, the union of one man and one woman. Any other arrangement can be recognized civilly (meaning legally), but it should not be referred to as a "marriage" (and, as I said earlier, should not be a matter for the Federal government to regulate).

For your religion, the word "marriage" may be codified as the union of one man and one woman. It is certainly not the case for all religions, and therefore your religion doesn't get to define the word for everyone else.

 

[Mustapha00]

For your religion, the word "marriage" may be codified as the union of one man and one woman. It is certainly not the case for all religions, and therefore your religion doesn't get to define the word for everyone else.

And under my suggestion that the Federal government get out of the marriage business, no religion- or absence of religion- will get to define the term for anyone else.

But the Federal government is not going to "butt out". If they did, we would not have photographers being sued to force them to violate their religious beliefs by taking photos at a same sex ceremony and we would not have bakers being sued for not baking wedding cakes for a same sex ceremony. Our First Amendment absolutely bars the Federal government from "establishing" a religion, but it also goes on to prevent government" from prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which is being ignored.

 

[cbalto1927]

On what basis do you determine what is moral vs immoral? If the decision is religiously motivated then it must be understood that the USA is not a theocracy and it is not incumbent on the people to accept religious notions of morality.

so to prove your argument, a person can have sex with kids. Since that is a immoral act, so as same sex marriage. By legalizing this same sex marriage, your allowing all the other groups who we believe are immoral going to fight to get what they want. Believe it or not pedophiles had won some battles because of this same sex marriage ruling. The Government has to grant rights to everyone who in US. I find this distasteful and we should never allow anything listed as Immoral to be even allowed in US. Way to go to ruin our great Country.

 

[DeletedUser8428]

Sorry cbalto. Exactly when did pedophiles win 'some' battles ? What battles did they win?

 

[cbalto1927]

Sorry cbalto. Exactly when did pedophiles win 'some' battles ? What battles did they win?

Age of consent for example, most states used to have sodomy laws, now we "allow" it. Equal representation at work place. Succeeded in Anti-discrimination cases in US about equal representation. The list goes on and on.This is the reason why other countries don't even think of making laws on same-sex marriage. Like i stated above your opening the door so to speak to allow all the other things in.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Age of consent for example, most states used to have sodomy laws, now we "allow" it. Equal representation at work place. Succeeded in Anti-discrimination cases in US about equal representation. The list goes on and on.This is the reason why other countries don't even think of making laws on same-sex marriage. Like i stated above your opening the door so to speak to allow all the other things in.

Age of consent in Delaware in 1875 was 7. By the 1920s, due to the work of reform groups, most states had raised age of consent to between 16 and 18. At present, the age of consent varies by state from 16 to 18. Marriageable age in the U.S. is generally 18, though most states allow down to 16 with parental/judicial consent. There has been no downward shift in the age of consent in the U.S. You're misinformed.

By 2002, owing to the gradual liberlization of American views on sex, most states had repealed their sodomy laws without any prodding from the federal government. In 2003, the 14 hold-outs, including Texas, had their sodomy laws struck down by the supreme court. Same sex marriage was still illegal in the country at the time, so it's can't be blamed for this.

Other countries don't even think of it? Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Oh, and the United States.
Same sex civil unions, though often not granting the same government rights as marriages, are legal in Andorra, Australia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Switzerland, and Malta. Most of these countries have active legislation to allow for same sex marriage.
This, to me, suggests your statement is an outright lie.

Now of course there are many countries where same sex relationships are illegal, and punishable by imprisonment and even death. Would you consider these penalties moral? I'm really curious where you stand on this matter.

 

[cbalto1927]

Age of consent in Delaware in 1875 was 7. By the 1920s, due to the work of reform groups, most states had raised age of consent to between 16 and 18. At present, the age of consent varies by state from 16 to 18. Marriageable age in the U.S. is generally 18, though most states allow down to 16 with parental/judicial consent. There has been no downward shift in the age of consent in the U.S. You're misinformed.

By 2002, owing to the gradual liberlization of American views on sex, most states had repealed their sodomy laws without any prodding from the federal government. In 2003, the 14 hold-outs, including Texas, had their sodomy laws struck down by the supreme court. Same sex marriage was still illegal in the country at the time, so it's can't be blamed for this.

Other countries don't even think of it? Same sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Oh, and the United States.
Same sex civil unions, though often not granting the same government rights as marriages, are legal in Andorra, Australia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Switzerland, and Malta. Most of these countries have active legislation to allow for same sex marriage.
This, to me, suggests your statement is an outright lie.

Now of course there are many countries where same sex relationships are illegal, and punishable by imprisonment and even death. Would you consider these penalties moral? I'm really curious where you stand on this matter.

Great... another Republican. It people like you brought this country to the knees. While most of your statement is true however. Today's American views on many topics would have never been spoken of 20 years ago. USA isnt my country anymore so as it seems.

 

[DeletedUser8428]

2 points. It's interesting to me that Glarg thoughtfully provided information which clearly demonstrated that your claim about pedophiles 'winning battles' was based, not on fact, but on propaganda and your only response was to admit that his statement was true. If his points are correct then I ask again - What battles did pedophiles win?

And ... REPUBLICAN? What, are you kidding me?

 

[Mustapha00]

Now of course there are many countries where same sex relationships are illegal, and punishable by imprisonment and even death. Would you consider these penalties moral? I'm really curious where you stand on this matter.

I don't think that you're equating opposition to same sex marriage with tossing gays off the roofs of buildings, but there are those who do draw that false equivalency. I do not support SSM, but I would never call for gays to be imprisoned or killed, yet because I do not enthusiastically embrace SSM, I am just as bigoted, in the eyes of many, as someone who would throw gays in jail...or worse.

- - - Updated - - -

I would not go so far as cbalto in saying that pedophiles are "winning battles" en masse, but it is indisputable that they have an organization which champions their 'cause'- the North American Man-Boy Love Association- and another organization which has defended that one when it has been sued in court- the American Civil Liberties Union.

Several years back, a white supremacist was sued by the family of a black person who had been killed by followers of the white supremacist. The black family won- as they should have- because a jury found that the white supremacist had 'inspired' his followers to commit violence, and the white supremacist lost a bunch of land he owned to the family as part of the settlement.

Again, I want to be clear" I have zero problem with that. Put me on the jury and I'd vote the same way.

However, when it came to two homosexual pedophiles who repeatedly raped and then killed a young boy, the ACLU stepped in and defended NAMBLA, which was involved because their literature had been found at the home of one of the pedophiles, and that same pedophile admitted that NAMBLA's publications 'inspired' him to commit his unspeakable acts. Why in the world would the ACLU bother to defend these 'men'? Yes, they are guaranteed legal counsel under our Constitution, but having the ACLU voluntarily stand up in this instance, when they would not do so in the case of the white supremacist (nor would I call for them to do so in the case) means that they believe pedophiles are more worthy of defense than racists (or maybe some racists).

 

[DeletedUser10415]

I don't think that you're equating opposition to same sex marriage with tossing gays off the roofs of buildings, but there are those who do draw that false equivalency. I do not support SSM, but I would never call for gays to be imprisoned or killed, yet because I do not enthusiastically embrace SSM, I am just as bigoted, in the eyes of many, as someone who would throw gays in jail...or worse.

It's not much of a leap between supporting laws that deny equal protection under the law (human rights) and seeing those laws as license to kill. It's very convenient to my argument that you introduced the white supremacist who had inspired his followers to commit violence. Thanks for that. So you would be mistaken in your thought that I am not equating the two, and the fact that you cannot equate the two in regard to homosexuals, but are able to where white on black racial violence is concerned also confirms your status as being as much of a bigot as those who are inclined to attempt to murder people like me because of my orientation. Also. Actual laws which discriminate are far more compelling as "inspiration" than the personal charisma of some wingnut white supremacist. Or do I have you all wrong? Would you not vote to repeal the legalization of SSM if given the chance?

I would not go so far as cbalto in saying that pedophiles are "winning battles" en masse, but it is indisputable that they have an organization which champions their 'cause'- the North American Man-Boy Love Association- and another organization which has defended that one when it has been sued in court- the American Civil Liberties Union.

However, when it came to two homosexual pedophiles who repeatedly raped and then killed a young boy, the ACLU stepped in and defended NAMBLA, which was involved because their literature had been found at the home of one of the pedophiles, and that same pedophile admitted that NAMBLA's publications 'inspired' him to commit his unspeakable acts. Why in the world would the ACLU bother to defend these 'men'? Yes, they are guaranteed legal counsel under our Constitution, but having the ACLU voluntarily stand up in this instance, when they would not do so in the case of the white supremacist (nor would I call for them to do so in the case) means that they believe pedophiles are more worthy of defense than racists (or maybe some racists).

Wow. That's my first reaction. I'm really curious where you get your sources. In the case of Curley vs. NAMBLA, the only person saying NAMBLA "somehow spurred" Jaynes (the murderer) to commit crimes was a witness for the Curleys, who the judge ruled incompetent to testify. Jaynes has always maintained his innocence. Also, irrelevant except for accuracy's sake Jayne's partner in crime, Sicari, who testified against Jaynes in the criminal case, reported the chain of events differently from from your presentation of them. I won't go into details because of where we are, but do some proper research, like I have, and you'll know the truth of it.

Guess what. The ACLU has defended the KKK!
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

The ACLU has defended Christians!
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html

Perhaps it's because they disagree with you on the SSM issue that you want to drag their name through the mud?
https://www.aclu.org/feature/out-freedom

Edit P.S.: Oh, by the way, your might find this statistic interesting:
In the mid 90s, an undercover detective discovered the NAMBLA organizational rolls. 1,100 members. In 1997, NAMBLA was the largest group in IPCE (an international pro-pedophile organization) The largest! I'm sorry, but they seem like quite the fringe organization to me.

In any event, what the heck does this have to do with SSM anyway?

 

[DeletedUser13838]

so to prove your argument, a person can have sex with kids. Since that is a immoral act, so as same sex marriage. By legalizing this same sex marriage, your allowing all the other groups who we believe are immoral going to fight to get what they want. Believe it or not pedophiles had won some battles because of this same sex marriage ruling. The Government has to grant rights to everyone who in US. I find this distasteful and we should never allow anything listed as Immoral to be even allowed in US. Way to go to ruin our great Country.

What exactly does sex have to do with marriage?

And under my suggestion that the Federal government get out of the marriage business, no religion- or absence of religion- will get to define the term for anyone else.

But the Federal government is not going to "butt out". If they did, we would not have photographers being sued to force them to violate their religious beliefs by taking photos at a same sex ceremony and we would not have bakers being sued for not baking wedding cakes for a same sex ceremony. Our First Amendment absolutely bars the Federal government from "establishing" a religion, but it also goes on to prevent government" from prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which is being ignored.

I may be misinformed but I never heard of anyone suing to force photographers, bakers etc. to take pictures at weddings or bake cakes, etc. If you're trying to somehow tie this in with a decision to force a public servant from performing their government duties then I don't see the connection. Part of a county clerk's job is issuing marriage certificates. If that person has an objection to performing their job duties for whatever reason they are free to find another job. They are not free to change the law based on their religious beliefs.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

I may be misinformed but I never heard of anyone suing to force photographers, bakers etc. to take pictures at weddings or bake cakes, etc.

You are misinformed. Some states have enacted anti - discrimination laws with regard to sexual orientation. It is within these states that businesses which are open to the public are required by state law to adhere to these laws. Both a wedding photographer and a bakery have run afoul of the courts in such states.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Do you have a link?

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Do you have a link?

Sure. Let's race to 10 pages with me looking up stuff for you. :hmph:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ng_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false

https://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/...ti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer

 

[DawnLight the Just]

It's not much of a leap between supporting laws that deny equal protection under the law (human rights) and seeing those laws as license to kill.

Are you kidding??? It is a HUGE leap to get from supporting laws to using laws as a license to kill, unless you are talking about the fringe lunatics. And in those cases, they don't need laws to base their "inspiration" on. Any little thing that crosses their minds gives them "license to kill".

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Are you kidding??? It is a HUGE leap to get from supporting laws to using laws as a license to kill, unless you are talking about the fringe lunatics. And in those cases, they don't need laws to base their "inspiration" on. Any little thing that crosses their minds gives them "license to kill".

Just because methods differ does not make either one more or less bigoted. There are no degrees of bigotry.

 

[DawnLight the Just]

Just because methods differ does not make either one more or less bigoted. There are no degrees of bigotry.

Bigotry requires actions that are in accordance with discrimination. Just because someone opposes SSM does not mean they fight to stop it. And yes, there are degrees of bigotry, unless you are differentiating bigotry from hate. Most of the crimes associated with homosexual issues are based on hate, not bigotry.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Hating someone for being homosexual is bigotry. Opposing SSM is taking action that is in accordance with discrimination, and is also bigotry.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Sure. Let's race to 10 pages with me looking up stuff for you. :hmph:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ng_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false

https://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/...ti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer

Thanks for posting these. Although I'm not sure you gave me enough info to search on my own. In any case I'm not sure what to think. I'm not a lawyer so take what I say with a grain of salt here but I think a private enterprise shouldn't be forced to provide services (and technically the bakery is paying a fine rather than baking a cake so I'll split hairs and claim a win on that ground ) while a public institution should. It can lead to a real slippery slope if not well defined what is and isn't allowed (can someone force a jewish rabbi to give their catholic son a bar mitzvah?). Do you know if there is a plan to appeal the decision?