|
Post by Gran Gran on Nov 14, 2008 8:17:40 GMT -5
The point isn't to keep everyone or as many people as possible happy. It's for them to have the rights they should. And yes it should be legal to smoke marijuana. so what makes them and say, people attracted to children (pedos) different? shouldn't they have rights too? ~Azula~ I think the rights of the kids override their rights. We are now mixing Apples with Hot Dogs. What a homosexual couple does, what goes on between consenting adults can hardly be compared to a situation where one party can't judge the severity of the situation. Besides it leaves a huge psychological impact on the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Lt. Dan on Nov 14, 2008 10:35:23 GMT -5
so what makes them and say, people attracted to children (pedos) different? shouldn't they have rights too? ~Azula~ I think the rights of the kids override their rights. Eggzactlee gran. Tera, your examples in this thread are obtuse and off the mark. The rights of one group should not infringe on the rights of another group. That is your basic metric. There is a difference between actions that cause harm and individual rights.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 14, 2008 20:00:37 GMT -5
They are seperate, they're called different things. Making them seperate Might as well be. The only people who will get civil unions are gay people and straight people trying to prove a point for the gay people Not if it's respected by the government. Since Marriage is respected by government the church saying it's "under god" has no effect on anything. If it does, than what if they said rape was condoned under god, than would we not be allowed to outlaw it Niether did the Christians. I know marriage existed before Christianity.....and I think Judaism.
|
|
|
Post by Paraiba Ocean on Nov 14, 2008 20:17:23 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#HistoryThe idea, rights and offical togetherness of marriage didn't exist until religion and state formed it into the status it is today. In Ancient Greece and other such societies, marriage was more of some sort of agreement between a man and a woman (more so a man and her parents)--usually for political or economic reasons. If the man decided he wanted a new wife, often enough to produce new heirs, the "marriage" was immediately dissolved without a word edgewise from her. Marriage as we know it today wasn't in the form as we know it today. If anything, it could be compared more so towards animals.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 14, 2008 21:39:47 GMT -5
Regardless. They still existed beforehand. Plus I'm pretty sure there were marriages like that after Christianity.
Plus, even if christianity made it the way it is now. And that made it so they own it. It's used by the government now and if religion wants control of it they should be fighting to make it so the government doesn't legally respect it and then they'll be able to outlaw any kind of marriage they want.
|
|
|
Post by Paraiba Ocean on Nov 14, 2008 23:09:20 GMT -5
Honestly, I'd consider these "marriages" closer to unions than anything. Everything was based on the whim of the male. It wasn't a true partnership like it is considered today. I didn't say Christianity made it the way it is now. I said religion and state made it that way. Marriage has an abundance of legal obligations and responsibilities, so it's not just priests speaking magic words and a party after. If you want to get technical, no one is married until the legal papers are signed. That means if I wanted to, I could go have five different weddings with five different men and not be married to any of them UNTIL I signed the papers. But to be quite honest, I'm a bit unsure about what point you're trying to make here, mike1921.
|
|
|
Post by Tungsten on Nov 15, 2008 0:43:52 GMT -5
Nuff said
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 15, 2008 0:47:34 GMT -5
I know that.
That you should be able to legally get married no matter what the church says because legal marriage has nothing to do with the church. Either that or the word "marriage" shouldn't exist in law and it'll only be spiritual. Like Bar Mitzphahsquote]Marriage has an abundance of legal obligations and responsibilities, so it's not just priests speaking magic words and a party after. [/quote] And how is that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by travellingfay on Nov 15, 2008 3:53:24 GMT -5
Well, this is a philosophy that would have left black Americans picking cotton in the field, unable to legally marry EACH OTHER, let alone anyone of a different colour. Or vote. Or become president of the USA. Just because the majority is happy with the status quo, it does NOT follow that the status quo is fine and dandy. Not when it hinges on injustice or abuse. ? REALLY? You really need this explaining? Gay marriage = 2 consenting adults committing themselves to one another publicly, and accepting the rights and responsibilities of a married couple. Both participants being individuals who are OLD ENOUGH to make this commitment, and freely choose to do so. Paedophilia = 1 consenting adult who is old enough to make their own decisions and act upon them - and 1 child, who (even if consenting - which, let's be honest, is generally NOT the case - we're pretty much talking rape here) has neither the maturity, experience nor the physical or economic strength to defend their own choices - that is, to consent. Which part of CONSENT or EMPOWERMENT is confusing you here? The only difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is that same sex couples can't make children together - something they have in common with plenty of straight couples. Since we don't prevent couples from marrying just because they don't wish/aren't able to have children, that really shouldn't be either here nor there. Moreover it's thoroughly bogus to present religion as a reason for disallowing samesex marriage, because the US does not prevent couples from marrying on the basis of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, or indeed on the basis of whether or not they cleave closely to a religion that they claim to follow. Plenty of people don't want a religious ceremony - they just want to be married, with all the rights and responsibilities that involves.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 15, 2008 11:45:49 GMT -5
Plus, they could adopt. Less children without permenant homes. No helping overpopulation. I think that should be encouraged. So, so, so agreed.
|
|
Tera253
Gran Gran
In Soviet Russia, post writes you
Posts: 588
|
Post by Tera253 on Nov 15, 2008 20:43:48 GMT -5
Well, this is a philosophy that would have left black Americans picking cotton in the field, unable to legally marry EACH OTHER, let alone anyone of a different colour. Or vote. Or become president of the USA. Just because the majority is happy with the status quo, it does NOT follow that the status quo is fine and dandy. Not when it hinges on injustice or abuse. if there was not some sort of "majority" against blacks being slaves, we wouldn't have had that big period in American history called "The Civil War". the reason I group it with 'other' (to use the most polite term) forms of sexual relationships is because that's not how it's god/science/whatever you believe in designed it to be. if it WAS the way it was supposed to be, then it would be possible for two creatures of the same sex to be able to reproduce. ~Azula~
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Nov 15, 2008 21:29:09 GMT -5
And you don't end up with your childhood crush.
Or heterosexual sterile couples aren't meant to produce children.
Really though. I believe humans are capable of forming consenting, mature relationships founded on love rather than sex or procreation. So no one has the right, not people who preach about their God, nor science, nor the law to eliminate or separate fundamental rights that belong to people.
Everything looks okay so far, but just a friendly note to keep everything cool, as this is an intellectual debate. We've had problems in the past with this issue, so I want to stress that anyone partaking in this remain mature.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Nov 15, 2008 22:09:37 GMT -5
Well, this is a philosophy that would have left black Americans picking cotton in the field, unable to legally marry EACH OTHER, let alone anyone of a different colour. Or vote. Or become president of the USA. Just because the majority is happy with the status quo, it does NOT follow that the status quo is fine and dandy. Not when it hinges on injustice or abuse. Off topic, but that is NOT the genesis of the Civil War. The fact that the abolition of slavery was one of the end results of the war does not mean a majority of people supported it. There were several, several other issues at play, and the above statement is a gross oversimplification of the issue and the attitudes at the time. Regardless, let's take slavery and the Civil War out of it. What about Jim Crow laws? They weren't overturned because a majority decided to throw them out. It was because a vocal minority stood in opposition of them, and kept pushing until things changed. In fact, that's the way most civil rights in this country have been achieved - through a vocal minority making its voice heard. Very rarely have civil rights in this country been secured through a "majority rules" situation. Very rarely.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 15, 2008 22:36:56 GMT -5
science has no design. How things are supposed to be has no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Nov 16, 2008 0:33:59 GMT -5
Put a little more into it if you please!
If God didn't mean it to be, why are creatures gay?! And we are not speaking of just human beings, but of pretty much all of creation. That's science for you.
Anyhow.
And I like Luthiens idea. It's like freedom of speech, if you are in the majority, you don't need it.
|
|