-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Same Sex Marriages
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
bio-chem said:
Bio,
I thought I made what I said clear. Incest is wrong and incest is incest (see Webster's New Third International Dictionary for the definition).
The reason it is wrong is due to the possible result of this type of Sexual activity - what will happen as a result. I am not stating what the "Bible" says about it (that is another matter) I am stating that biologically there very often are real problems from having sexual relations with those in the same immediate family. To prevent this from happening and causing someone subsequently born as a result of that Sexual activity with immediate family members, incest is prohibited and for good reason. Those that do not care about the result of their actions are not always the ones to suffer especially immediately and personally. The real focus is for the benefit of those unborn and hopefully not conceived in the first place.
John H.
Thanks...Learning something new everyday!kbm8795 said:
There is a book that discusses this: SAME-SEX UNIONS IN PRE-MODERN EUROPE, by John Boswell. See some reviews at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...1/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7491193-6192757
Take Care, John H.
Take Care, John H.
All marriage should be illegal!!!
Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be a relationship between
the couple, and the ruling religious body who is doing the sanctioning...
The government has more important things to do than to rule on this tribble!
And keep it all out of my courtrooms too!!!
I don't have time to listen to ex-husbands and wives argue,
while I am waiting to get out of my speeding tickets -
When you get a new job and you fill out the insurance info,
it should have three plan choices
1. Claim one
2. Claim one + dependant adult
3. Claim one + dependant adult + dependant minor(s)
It would be illegal to say anything about spouse or to ask marrital status!
Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be a relationship between
the couple, and the ruling religious body who is doing the sanctioning...
The government has more important things to do than to rule on this tribble!
And keep it all out of my courtrooms too!!!
I don't have time to listen to ex-husbands and wives argue,
while I am waiting to get out of my speeding tickets -
When you get a new job and you fill out the insurance info,
it should have three plan choices
1. Claim one
2. Claim one + dependant adult
3. Claim one + dependant adult + dependant minor(s)
It would be illegal to say anything about spouse or to ask marrital status!
The Monkey Man said:All marriage should be illegal!!!
Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be a relationship between
the couple, and the ruling religious body who is doing the sanctioning...
The government has more important things to do than to rule on this tribble!
And keep it all out of my courtrooms too!!!
I don't have time to listen to ex-husbands and wives argue,
while I am waiting to get out of my speeding tickets -
When you get a new job and you fill out the insurance info,
it should have three plan choices
1. Claim one
2. Claim one + dependant adult
3. Claim one + dependant adult + dependant minor(s)
It would be illegal to say anything about spouse or to ask marrital status!
I second that motion!
The Monkey Man said:All marriage should be illegal!!!
Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be a relationship between
the couple, and the ruling religious body who is doing the sanctioning...
The government has more important things to do than to rule on this tribble!
And keep it all out of my courtrooms too!!!
I don't have time to listen to ex-husbands and wives argue,
while I am waiting to get out of my speeding tickets -
When you get a new job and you fill out the insurance info,
it should have three plan choices
1. Claim one
2. Claim one + dependant adult
3. Claim one + dependant adult + dependant minor(s)
It would be illegal to say anything about spouse or to ask marrital status!
Hi Monkey Man,
To me "marriage" should be something ALL people can have as an option if they so agree and desire and choose and are able to enter into (are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely) such an agreement - "marriage" IS a MAN-MADE creation in the first place and something that is "instutionalized" by Man. It is most commonly found within "religions" which also are Man-made.
To quell the uproar about Same-Sex "marriages" (which I feel really has no real basis for "worry" - it is NOT "somehow" an "attack" on anyone! or anything!) I feel ALL people should be able to enter into a "union" of their choosing say with the government ONLY as a form of "registering" that they are IN A "UNION" for the purposes of ownership, survivorship, etc. THEN, IF a couple wishes to subscribe to a "marriage" they could do that IN A CHURCH of their choosing - those that would "be able" or "subscribe" to the "marriage" of those involved.
Same-Sex marriages have been preformed historically speaking. The "idea" is not something "new".
It should also be "illegal" to discriminate in ANY fashion and for ANY reason - the ONLY requirement should be that those involved TRULY CARE about each other - their Sexual Orientation should never have anything to do with it - each person about to become involved MUST BE of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely - nothing more.
Take Care, John H.
Finally a good post on this threadThe Monkey Man said:All marriage should be illegal!!!
Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be a relationship between
the couple, and the ruling religious body who is doing the sanctioning...
The government has more important things to do than to rule on this tribble!
And keep it all out of my courtrooms too!!!
I don't have time to listen to ex-husbands and wives argue,
while I am waiting to get out of my speeding tickets -
When you get a new job and you fill out the insurance info,
it should have three plan choices
1. Claim one
2. Claim one + dependant adult
3. Claim one + dependant adult + dependant minor(s)
It would be illegal to say anything about spouse or to ask marrital status!
John H. said:
NO NO NO... FREAKIN NO! JOHN - 
You are only echoing the stupidity of the problems the system
already has, you lovable knucklehead...
WE NEED CHANGE!
Marriage has to be completely separated from government
All the nicey nice things like living wills, and medical advisorship
can be done with one signature and the government or court
need not be involved...
Do you really need them in your personal business anyway!?!?
The Monkey Man said:
You are only echoing the stupidity of the problems the system
already has, you lovable knucklehead...
WE NEED CHANGE!
Marriage has to be completely separated from government
All the nicey nice things like living wills, and medical advisorship
can be done with one signature and the government or court
need not be involved...
Do you really need them in your personal business anyway!?!?
Hi The MM,
I agree actually -
How about going a step further - keeping government AND religion COMPLETELY OUT of marriage - or whatever anyone wants to call it - let's make it that it it ENTIRELY BETWEEN - AND ONLY THE BUSINESS OF - those who agree to it NOT the govenment, NOT religion, NOT anyone else unless those so involved would want that intrusion WILLINGLY? After all, the relationship between those who age of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely IS BETWEEN THOSE and NO ONE ELSE! Or at least that is the way it SHOULD BE! (I am NOT and NEVER WOULD agree to a relationship between those who are minors and/or are children IN ANY FASHION FOR ANY REASON - I DO want to make that COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD - those involved MUST BE OF AGE AND ABILITY OF CONSENT AND GIVE THAT CONSENT FREELY!!) Other than that I see no reason why personal relationships should be anyone's business!
For the purposes of "recording it" for - say - wills, medical situations, etc. - it could be somehow recorded but I see ABSOLUTELY NO real reason why something PERSONAL should "become someone else's business".
Take Care, John H.
bio-chem said:
Bio:
Are you still "preaching" that "religious stuff"? RELIGION IS MAN-MADE - please REMEMBER that. Look at what MAN has created in the Middle East - I want ABSOLUTELY NO PART OF ANY OF THAT CRAP!! And this world would BE MUCH BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT TOO! TRUST ME!
Personal business IS PERSONAL BUSINESS - NOT the business of government, religion, and others not directly involved - PERIOD!
John H.
great post. be careful though he will give you a novel but not really answser your question.Eggs said:Hey John, can you give me a definition of personal business and lay out that which the government should not have any impact on?
I wish the Various religions would stand up themselves and say...
"Hey, we don't want GOVT telling us what to believe, or not believe...
how to act, or not to act"
Doesn't our constitution state
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So if this is true how can any court or government, deem what type of marriage is legal or illegal, or even involve itself in the institution of marriage,
which to my knowledge has always been a religious ceremony, or rite of passage
"Hey, we don't want GOVT telling us what to believe, or not believe...
how to act, or not to act"
Doesn't our constitution state
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So if this is true how can any court or government, deem what type of marriage is legal or illegal, or even involve itself in the institution of marriage,
which to my knowledge has always been a religious ceremony, or rite of passage
"Appealing to all mankind, the Declarations's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-efident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system."
Roger Pilon, senior fellow and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.
by disregarding our moral reasoning and saying there is no "higher law" we destroy the very foundation our forefathers built upon.
Roger Pilon, senior fellow and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.
by disregarding our moral reasoning and saying there is no "higher law" we destroy the very foundation our forefathers built upon.
The concept of "moral reasoning" isn't some exclusive heterosexual domain. Rather, it has been repeatedly shown that same-sex relationships not only existed before the advent of christianity (which itself isn't necessarily the author of moral law - meaning religion does not equal morality) but as an accepted natural state of relationships that can and does exist among humans.
The concept of marriage is regarded differently in our laws and traditions. For example, one of the reasons that one spouse is not required to testify against the other spouse is because marriage is regarded as something joined beyond the reach of law. Moreover, rather than traditional marriage, which was arranged for economic purposes by extended family members, clergy, or tribal leader (which would mean that all marriages today are immoral in their eyes), the concept of individual choice and intimate bonding is seen as beyond the reach or interference of government AND other people unless there can be shown a practical and material interest in disallowing that union.
Since the legal/social benefits of marriage involve wholly practical matters, the interest of "morality" is murky at best. However, the insistence by some religious/social groups that there is some inherent natural reason why, for example, only certain individuals are entitled to choose where they are buried, who inherits their property, and who is recognized as next-of-kin, the morality argument is nothing more than philosophical haggling in which certain citizens are expected to sacrifice basic practical tenets of their lives to placate the vague "morality" of others.
The Church is not THE author of what is "right" and "wrong" and many state constitutions make it quite clear that religion and morality are listed separately as influences in construction of constitutional law.
The concept of marriage is regarded differently in our laws and traditions. For example, one of the reasons that one spouse is not required to testify against the other spouse is because marriage is regarded as something joined beyond the reach of law. Moreover, rather than traditional marriage, which was arranged for economic purposes by extended family members, clergy, or tribal leader (which would mean that all marriages today are immoral in their eyes), the concept of individual choice and intimate bonding is seen as beyond the reach or interference of government AND other people unless there can be shown a practical and material interest in disallowing that union.
Since the legal/social benefits of marriage involve wholly practical matters, the interest of "morality" is murky at best. However, the insistence by some religious/social groups that there is some inherent natural reason why, for example, only certain individuals are entitled to choose where they are buried, who inherits their property, and who is recognized as next-of-kin, the morality argument is nothing more than philosophical haggling in which certain citizens are expected to sacrifice basic practical tenets of their lives to placate the vague "morality" of others.
The Church is not THE author of what is "right" and "wrong" and many state constitutions make it quite clear that religion and morality are listed separately as influences in construction of constitutional law.
good job, you have disregarded the idea of morality, and taken away from the fact that truth is eternal, arguing it can change depending on the whims of the people. you have successfully taken away from the foundation the US was established on, thereby taking away from what made this country great. it is this type of reasoning that is reducing the US from the great nation ist was
If truth were eternal, then every heterosexual marriage not arranged by a tribal leader or family would be immoral. And yep - marriage, just like everything else in cultures that evolve, changes with the whim of people. Just like religious doctrine.
What made this country great was its ability to attempt to balance progress with recognition of the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives to the fullest level of success and satisfaction. That doesn't involve demanding others make lifetime sacrifices to perpetuate your personal choice of superstitions.
What made this country great was its ability to attempt to balance progress with recognition of the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives to the fullest level of success and satisfaction. That doesn't involve demanding others make lifetime sacrifices to perpetuate your personal choice of superstitions.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Religious doctorine does not change. In fact, we get beat up all the time for failing to "keep up with society." Certain denominations become more liberal. This is not doctrine changing but rather their desire to keep the doctrine.kbm8795 said:
kbm keep your posts to the point. are you saying there are no self-efident truths? you cant have things both ways. either our founding was based on these self efident truths which point to a higher law which our founding fathers were aiming for, or these truths are a falacy and our founding is nothing special and based on an untrue principle. which do you believe?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What your church dictates as acceptable guidelines may not be acceptable as anything moral to others.
Do you think the world contained no kind of moral compass before the advent of Christianity?
What your church dictates as acceptable guidelines may not be acceptable as anything moral to others.
Do you think the world contained no kind of moral compass before the advent of Christianity?
