john5746

would that be a protestant marriage? Or is that one where you behead your wife?

I think it should only be called a marriage if the couple agrees to raise children.

No argument here. That's why we have amendments and changes to law. However, changes in interpretation do have a cascading effect that cannot be eliminated. For example, when we read "All men are created equal" that has a much different meaning then it did when first written.

Yet you want to decide for all women that they must carry their pregnancy to full term, so that you can feel better. Selfish reason? The value of a zygote in a petrie dish is what? I say the value of a zygote rests with the woman who carries it. She has the ultimate emotional attachment to it and pays the ultimate price if it is terminated or allowed to live. It is her decision to make, not yours and not mine. Don't hide your demands behind the zygote, you are making the decision to compel the woman to carry full-term, not the zygote.

This is true and it is just as important to realize that as popular opinion changes, so does the definition. Some act as if it was written on a stone tablet somewhere and has been that way, unaltered since time began. These things evolve in the culture. We hope reason eventually wins out, regardless of the outcome.

I don't see where the cherry picking is occuring. We are expanding the rights of individuals within the framework of a two person marriage. If someone says they want to be able to vote for 10 people, because they take care of them is that the same argument as minorites being able to vote? I don't think so. Making something a right doesn't mean that there are no constraints.

Adults have the right to vote, not children. Adults have the right to bear arms, not children. The argument is that any two adults should have the right to marry, not 10 adults, not children, not if they are related, etc.

This makes no sense to me at all. In your analogy, its as if you are saying that if we allow blacks to play baseball, then we also need to allow women, children and dogs and cats. They are completely different topics with their own impact and arguments. Slippery slope fallacy. The culture accepts marriage as between one man and one woman, regardless of race, religion, creed, etc. We are talking about extending that to between one man and one man or one woman and one woman. We are reviewing the definition of marriage, which has been reviewed in the past - in regards to race, religion, family relations, age and polygamy. Examination of cultural norms and legal consequences may bring up other discussions, but if they differ in some way, then they need to rest on their own merits. Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc are different arguments than same-sex marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage are not obligated to also support these groups any more than anyone else, because they differ with same-sex marriage just as much as heterosexual marriage. In the same way, Mormon polygamists are not obligated to support same-sex marriage any more than other people. Different situations, different arguments. Now, transgender or hemaphrodites would be considered equivalent in my opinion and I would expect them to be included in the same argument for same-sex marriage.

I saw New York's governor on CNN. He is proposing a same-sex marriage bill. When asked why he isn't trying the domestic union route, he said that it has been in the works for years and has proven too difficult. Wonder why Washington is able to do what New York cannot?

I thought the first half was pretty good, but the remarks at the end were unprofessional, but typical these days. The main problem is that you can see she just wants to score a soundbite - she isn't going to have more than a minute to report.

From the article you linked: So, some people still think it is an attack on marriage and I am sure some people think calling it something different is wrong as well.

If I knew there was a doctor in my town that was bringing in school children and killing them and it was all legal, then I would seriously consider purchasing some arms and taking him out. So, have you purchased your guns yet or are you too timid to do the right thing? Cmon, genocide in your neighborhood. Can't let that happen.

And maybe Cuba could help Americans get some health care on the cheap...

Because they are actually space aliens that are plotting the destruction of earth. They have advanced technology that allows them to do it.

When you mention the cause of the Great Depression, what do you think is the cause for this one? I think it is deeper than just the housing crisis. I think the loss of manufacturing has eroded the middle class income and we have baby boomers set to retire. The housing crisis might just be an acute symptom of the real underlying problem that cannot be solved by just passing more regulation and firing a few CEO's.

That's a good question. I think churches do not have to marry people of other faiths or no faith. I think that is correct. If they didn't want to marry people of different races, then they would probably be open to some can of worms. I'm not sure what would be the case with homosexuals. Now, with adoption, I think they will run into some issues. But I wonder if a catholic church would allow adoption to atheist parents? Never really thought about it.

legally, yes. But I was referring to opinion. Homosexual couples, fresh from a struggle for their rights might have more insight, but they are not required to support any other group more than hetero couples. I am not a lawyer, but we have two parties essentially becoming one entity in certain situations. It looks the same to me. We do need to be concerned about the practical aspects of laws. 1000 people may want to be married, but it just wouldn't make any sense from a legal standpoint. Sure, they can have a spiritual union and have fun together, but legally it would be a mess to sort out disputes, etc.

If you posit something that is beyond our imagination and logic, then you cannot use those to place boundaries on this being. It can do anything means it can do anything, including the impossible, illogical, etc. I find it hard to conceive of nothing. My consciousness has evolved through time, just as my physical body has changed. If my body, especially my brain experiences damage, my consciousness is affected. When I die, there will be no evidence that my consciousness survived. It seems only logical that it be attributed to a physical brain than from an external source. Several ideas, but no one knows. I assume that something has always existed, that a state of nothing never exists. You can assume a being always existed and created something, we may never know the true answer. But, I hope you understand that the only difference between my assumption and yours is that your something(being) is a far greater assumption than mine. The more attributes you give to this being(without any evidence), the more unlikely that your assumption will be correct.

I doubt they will be more inclined than dif-sexers will be. Do you think a homosexual couple MUST support polygamy? Why? Where will it end? This business of marriage is a very fluffy affair. (But the traditional marriage institution is already so badly self-screwed that I’d say all arguable value systems are up for grabs.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged forget I mentioned genetics. Like Mokele said, it isn't a justification. Its a difference I think, but not a justification. What do you think about the legal issues? Don't you think polygamy brings about more legal mess than a couple? Yay!! by then, we should all be blond and blue-eyed.

With the exception of the ability to create children, two men is equivalent to a man and woman marriage. They can adopt and not all hetero couplings can or will result in procreation, but in general this is the only difference. With polygamy, we have more than two people. This results in more complications as to property rights, taxation, children, etc. Maybe it isn't too difficult with 3,4,5. I just think we should keep the number at 2. So, with same sex marriage we don't have any more legal complications than currently, but with polygamy we do. Also, I'm not sure that people are born polygamists genetically and must live this way to feel happy.

I happen to be against polygamy, for various reasons, but the main one being a legal nightmare. If 100 people decide to be married, it really does dilute the purpose. In any case, polygamy exists with or without same sex marriage. Just as interracial marriage doesn't lead to humans marrying animals, same sex marriage has nothing to do with the number of people. I would define marriage as a bond between two adults. If that gets changed to be between multiple adults, it will not be because of gay people or black people or atheists. Calling something sacred instead of providing reason just leaves it open for eventual question and/or ridicule.

possibly, but then they would have nothing more to do with same sex marriage than different sex marriage.

I think both statements are true.

http://www.gmilburn.ca/2009/03/20/clever-as-a-fox/ This reminds me of the domesticated fox experiment in the above link. Selecting for less aggressive foxes resulted in several physical changes, including pigmentation.

Not my experience. I think most people want to be above average. If they achieve a certain level, then they may provide some help to those below average.