« How Old Is the Earth? | Main | Christian Same-sex Unions? »

May 17, 2012

Comments

@ Luscinia -

Do you have something of substance to say? Or are you here only to waste other people's time as well as your own?

Nothing in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman specifies that the man and/or the woman be heterosexual. They may claim to be homosexual, for all the law cares.

Therefore, there is no discrimination in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that EVERYBODY is either a man/male, or a woman/female. NOBODY is left out who is either a man/male, or a woman/female.

I can't marry the woman I love because she's married.

I can't marry the woman I love because she doesn't wanna marry me.

Where are MY Rights?

In all this debate, people seem to forget the actual disgusting act of sodomy that takes place in these homosexual relationships, one of the main reasons that homosexuality has been frowned upon since forever (surely that speaks for itself too). There is a reason that this minority group remains a minority and that is because MOST people know it is the wrong thing to do.
Science has proven that there is no homosexual gene, so NO you were not born that way. I have many friends who were homosexuals when they were younger but realised it was a bad lifestyle CHOICE and are now in healthy heterosexual relationships.
If you actually research the figures, you will find that the gay community is only around 2.5%, not the 10% that they claim and most of them are not even interested is marriage relationships. They are only fighting so they can say "we told you so, you have to listen to us now". This is a media circus for a small minority.

So is the notion of marriageability an additive one, or a subtractive one? That is, are the classes that are allowed to be married enumerated (thereby marriageability is defined by the classed allowed to marry)? Or is it assumed that everyone is allowed to marry excepting some specific classes (thus defined as all of us minus a few specific subtractions)? Note that the distinction is one of bias: in additive, you need to have a reason to let a class in (i.e., to be admitted to marriageability), but in subtractive, you need a reason to keep someone out.

Mr. Shlemon's assertion (when discussing his close male friend) that somehow sex is not foundational to marriage is absurd. Marriage is a sanctioned condition for sexual relations. Otherwise, why Christianity's prohibitions against pre- or extramarital sex? His arguments depend heavily on this premise and so little else seems left to support his conclusions.

I realize that Christians may observe additional reasons that would preclude them from exercising their civil right to marry given certain extra conditions, but that's not sufficient reason to impose a restriction on others. For instance, some sects don't condone drinking alcohol; for observers of that sect, they don't drink. But the rest of us have to right to do so.

The law has historically been subtractive, albeit with the historical cultural presumption that same-sex couples are to be excluded (at least in the U.S.). Unless there is an objectively good reason to exclude people (such as unfair power differentials involving children or genetic inbreeding threatening public health), shouldn't marriage be available to all? Including same-sex couples?

Marriage IS available to all in the same way: All men may marry women, and all women may marry men. Heterosexuality of trhe individuals is not required. Sex is nor required. Love is not required. White is not required. A Republican and a Democrat may marry.

"For example, it cannot reveal the definition of a human."

Hitler would have like that. (Sorry, I had to bring Godwin's law into this thread :-)

I also like that it sounds like God Wins law.

I read a really good article here:
http://trueobedience.org/homosexual-people-and-the-vindication-they-long-for-2/

The comments to this entry are closed.