Same Sex Marriage

[isired]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Gay marriage? Hey, no problem.
While we're at it polygamy should be okayed. Two men-one woman. Two women-one man. All the various permutations and combinations.
"I have 4 wives. I want (demand) ALL of them covered under my benefit plan, Mr. Employer".
And how about age? Why not 6 year old girls eligible. And the same for boys. To those of similar age or 60 year old adults?
And of course, why should we discriminate against those who prefer marriage to ssomething in the animal kingdom - say a dog, horse or sheep.

Let's not be shortsighted on limiting depravity. Let's go all out. It's everyone's RIGHT.

You're usually smarter than this. Can a 6 year old or an animal consent to marriage, or legally enter into ant contract?

Polygamists would have a better argument if their existing practices weren't so fraught with coercion and mistreatment of young women and men.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Gay marriage? Hey, no problem.
While we're at it polygamy should be okayed. Two men-one woman. Two women-one man. All the various permutations and combinations.
"I have 4 wives. I want (demand) ALL of them covered under my benefit plan, Mr. Employer".
And how about age? Why not 6 year old girls eligible. And the same for boys. To those of similar age or 60 year old adults?
And of course, why should we discriminate against those who prefer marriage to ssomething in the animal kingdom - say a dog, horse or sheep.

Let's not be shortsighted on limiting depravity. Let's go all out. It's everyone's RIGHT.

Do you want a serious discussion on those topics or do you prefer to just raise incendiary points for their shock value?

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by isired

You're usually smarter than this. Can a 6 year old or an animal consent to marriage, or legally enter into ant contract?

Polygamists would have a better argument if their existing practices weren't so fraught with coercion and mistreatment of young women and men.

6 years old CAN NOT "currently" consent to marriage or enter into a contract. But why do we discriminate against them in such an un-American way? Unfair. Women were once denied contractual rights. And blacks.
In some states 15 year olds can marry. Why not 6 (an arbitrary selection by me). It could have been 4.
Alcohol and tobacco are limited to those 21 and older. Why? Any age should be able to use and purchase. Drive a car at 16? Why not as soon as you can see over the wheel?
Voting only by citizens? Why? Why not illegals or even vistors or any age.
Drug use. No rules. Whatever you want. sampler parties should be held early on in school so kids can become acquainted with various forms and develop favorites.
Same with sex. It should be promoted on site in schools. Sort of an adjunct to gym class. - "Today, everyone is going to do oral sex". Sort of like climbing ropes.
Let's eliminate boundaries and needless limitations for all. "Power to the people. Death to the fascists".

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by HessStation

CALIGULAAAaaaaaaa!!!!

The sexy blonde witht he hot body in those backline "apartments" was helen mirren.

:thats-a-woman:

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Do you want a serious discussion on those topics or do you prefer to just raise incendiary points for their shock value?

There needs to be a counterpoint to PK at times.
Hence I have thrown out a number of bizarre situations to highlight my position on gay marriage which I think is an unacceptable state.
I have stated my position against gay marriage before. It is not based on morality (some may take a moral position - fine), but mine is based on economics - "spousal" benefits etc.
I like sarcastic and incendiary. Shock and recognition. Nicey nice doesn't always work.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

I misunderstood what you said.

Fair enough.

By the way, cross thread polination, "Tricky Ricky" is a riff off you being a Republican with a screen name of Richard (a la Nixon). I.e. Tricky Ricky (as opposed to calling you Tricky Dick, which seemed more rude). No harm intended, even if I think you're totally clueless on the topic of pot.[ You're still my 6th, maybe 7th, favorite Mod.

Originally Posted by doggin94it

I'm a religious jew; I believe Paganism is an utterly wrong view of the world and harmful to its adherents. Sort of comes with the territory

Indeed, and the "why it's harmful to it's adherants" was what I was hoping to get your views on.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Indeed, and the "why it's harmful to it's adherants" was what I was hoping to get your views on.

Because correct theological belief - like any other reality - is of benefit. An understanding of the existence of God, of what that means for the nature of the universe and human existence, is beneficial (and, IMO and based on long discussions with some atheists I very much respect for their intelligence and sincerity) necessary to any consistent and coherent moral system. (Note, I'm not saying atheists cannot be moral - just that it's impossible to have an internally consistent and coherent moral system absence a reliance on some objective and external source of morality).

And the lack of such a good is harmful.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I have stated my position against gay marriage before. It is not based on morality (some may take a moral position - fine), but mine is based on economics - "spousal" benefits etc.

I see, so you would deny someone equal rights because of the cost?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Because correct theological belief - like any other reality - is of benefit. An understanding of the existence of God, of what that means for the nature of the universe and human existence, is beneficial (and, IMO and based on long discussions with some atheists I very much respect for their intelligence and sincerity) necessary to any consistent and coherent moral system. (Note, I'm not saying atheists cannot be moral - just that it's impossible to have an internally consistent and coherent moral system absence a reliance on some objective and external source of morality).

And the lack of such a good is harmful.

Why does the "objective and external" have to be "God"?

Why could it not be some other conceptualization, say, sanctity of life? At it's core, eithout concrete evidence of existence, God is just that, a conceptualization of man. A belief. Faith.

But Man can faith in other concepts just s easily, and use them as the core of their morality system, and yet still be internally consistent.

You say you're not saying athiests can't be moral.....and then say, basicly, that without God, there is no such thing as morality.

I would counter that God is wholely unneeded to formulate an "internally consistent" moral code. It's only needed if you choose one of the existing, pre-frmed, moral codes provided by the various faiths.

And lets be honest, not a single faith, Judaism included, is actually "internally consistent". Read your old testement recently....if so, and if you (and Judaism) were consistent, you'd be stoning and killing and enslaving people on a daily basis.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I see, so you would deny someone equal rights because of the cost?

YES. They can have all the rights except spousal benefits. They can have sex or not as they see fit. Live together. Visit each other and have medical decision making. Can inherit. Separate tax returns (no marriage PENALTY). Just not med or other employee type benefits (or SS).

Are we not currently denying many rights in other areas? See my above posts.

[isired]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

In some states 15 year olds can marry. Why not 6 (an arbitrary selection by me). It could have been 4.

Do you really equate a 6 year old and a gay adult man or woman with regards to whether they should be allowed to marry? Of course you don't. Make an argument worth discussing.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Do you really equate a 6 year old and a gay adult man or woman with regards to whether they should be allowed to marry? Of course you don't. Make an argument worth discussing.

It's bad logic.

Gays are:

1. Adult, Human Beings, Capable of making Adult decision as to their life and capable of consent.

Kids are not. Animals are not.

Hence arguments that start with "Kids/Animals too then...." are bad logic, and should be quickly dismissed as such.

The REAL argument is "What about plural marriage then...." as that is 100% the same line of argument as gays, as it involves a legal contract, adults, capable of consent, etc.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Because correct theological belief - like any other reality - is of benefit. An understanding of the existence of God, of what that means for the nature of the universe and human existence, is beneficial (and, IMO and based on long discussions with some atheists I very much respect for their intelligence and sincerity) necessary to any consistent and coherent moral system. (Note, I'm not saying atheists cannot be moral - just that it's impossible to have an internally consistent and coherent moral system absence a reliance on some objective and external source of morality).

And the lack of such a good is harmful.

Doggin, we have had theological disagreements before. We are both religious to some degree.
BUT, the "my religion is better than yours" line is not going to cut it. Here or ever.
People have different beliefs. Period. Even people of the same religion have different beliefs and values.
If a person is a pagan or atheist, that's their belief system. As long as they don't have crazy practices like sacrificing virgins or children or harmful acts - ok. I will not criticize religion (Islam has been an exception for me). Based on its practiced and endorsed violence.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It's bad logic.

Gays are:

1. Adult, Human Beings, Capable of making Adult decision as to their life and capable of consent.

Kids are not. Animals are not.

Hence arguments that start with "Kids/Animals too then...." are bad logic, and should be quickly dismissed as such.

Well, Animals are property, and thus their owners can make decisions for them. It's not exactly the same, but i don't know why inter-species marriages ought to be dismissed out of hand.

Originally Posted by Warfish

The REAL argument is "What about plural marriage then...." as that is 100% the same line of argument as gays, as it involves a legal contract, adults, capable of consent, etc.

Not 100% the same. marriage is a vehicle through which legal rights and privileges are bestowed. If gay marriage is legal, i do not believe private businesses will be allowed to withhold benefits from gay couples. If polygamous marriage is allowed i do not believe private businesses will be able to provide the benefits to only one spouse. But then I'm no legal expert, perhaps I'm wrong there. Also, which spouse is entitled to your death benefits, etc. It might be easier to deal with legal human/dog marriages than human marriages involving 3+ people to be quite honest.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The REAL argument is "What about plural marriage then...." as that is 100% the same line of argument as gays, as it involves a legal contract, adults, capable of consent, etc.

The current marriage institution is one consenting adult male and one consenting adult female. With gay marriage the structure of the institution (1 to 1 relationship) stays unchanged while plural marriage would required a restructuring of laws due to a change in the number of entities involved. Of course, it's not impossible to change, but it would come with quite a bit reform.

[isired]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

YES. They can have all the rights except spousal benefits. They can have sex or not as they see fit. Live together. Visit each other and have medical decision making. Can inherit. Separate tax returns (no marriage PENALTY). Just not med or other employee type benefits (or SS).

Are we not currently denying many rights in other areas? See my above posts.

LOL - then why not just deny spousal rights to caucasians, or right-handed people, or people with all 10 fingers? That would save a ton more money than denying gay people.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by isired

Do you really equate a 6 year old and a gay adult man or woman with regards to whether they should be allowed to marry? Of course you don't. Make an argument worth discussing.

It's hyperbole. A devise I like because it highlights absurdity.
Please advise the CORRECT acceptable age for marriage.
Please advise WHY various combinations of male and female are not allowed and what the CORRECT assortment would be.
Here's one: I would be for gay marriage if ALL economic elements were eliminated. Let's have a vote if all HETEROSEXUAL married couples would be willing to forego THEIR benefits as well.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Axil

Well, Animals are property, and thus their owners can make decisions for them. It's not exactly the same, but i don't know why inter-species marriages ought to be dismissed out of hand.

If gay marriage is legal, i do not believe private businesses will be allowed to withhold benefits from gay couples. If polygamous marriage is allowed i do not believe private businesses will be able to provide the benefits to only one spouse.

of course they shouldn't be able to deny one same sex spouse, it's the same benefit you're offering a married hetero couple. Multiple I would think they could put a cap on it, many do now (contribute $xxx to the insurance, anything beyond that you cover if you want that insurance).

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by isired

LOL - then why not just deny spousal rights to caucasians, or right-handed people, or people with all 10 fingers? That would save a ton more money than denying gay people.

Let the people vote. "Resolved: Caucasians will, effective immediately, forfeit all marital rights".

BTW, isn't marriage a state's rights issue?

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by isired

of course they shouldn't be able to deny one same sex spouse, it's the same benefit you're offering a married hetero couple. Multiple I would think they could put a cap on it, many do now (contribute $xxx to the insurance, anything beyond that you cover if you want that insurance).

No offense, but now YOU are the being arbitrary, in all honesty.
Look at all sides.
I endorse none of it to be up front.
States set an age limit on marriage. But 17 should be the min in MHO.
No same sex marriage. No polygamy. No bestiality. 18 to vote, drink or smoke.