GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[GIThruster]

Yes, the Libertarians would love for you to believe there are just a few modest goals with changing marriage from what it is to what they want (which is that it no longer has the force of law) but the fact is, what they propose would be sweeping. Polyamory is a tame example. Beastiality is another and not so tame. Abandonment is a natural result of what the Libertarians are proposing because they are supporting personal liberty above and over social contacts.

Pretty simple--if you're a selfish pig, you can pretend marriage is whatever you like. If you have a sense of decency and understand the need to protect children, you understand what we've been doing the last couple thousand years is about the best one can do and you also understand that "no fault" divorce is a bad joke that does not protect children.

[GIThruster]

The issue with incestual relationships is the genetic consequences for the children.

That is only one issue. There are a host of others. Family is intended to be a special kind of refuge where family members that are not married, are safe from the sexual pressures and expectations of others in their family. People who pretend the only issue with incest is the genetic consequences mistake the most serious and important issues, and give themselves license they should not.

Pure evil.

There is no other word for a boy who seduces his sister or a girl who seduces her brother, for sibblings that indulge sexually and homosexually with each other, for parents who indulge with their children, etc. Almost all the consequences are psychological and these things make for very screwed up people. Hillbilly ethics is really no ethics at all.

[palladin9479]

The only way to end the battle is to separate the governmental function of social unions from the religious function of marriage. Essentially all social contracts between two adult participants need to be legally defined as unions with the term "marriage" removed entirely from law.

With it granted that other individuals as individuals are free to extend or withhold privileges they grant to those they consider to be married as their conscience dictates, I'm quite sold on that idea.

My chief objection to "gay marriage" is that the lack of it generally pisses off people I like to see pissed off, and I think they really mean to use it to sue their political enemies out of existence.

The gay marriage proponents in this case seem generally to confuse the legal recognition of gay marriage or civil unions as excuses to destroy the 1st amendment rights of the people who do not recognize such. I think that "confusion" is deliberate and the real point of it for most of them, and unless settling the issue protects those rights, I'd rather it were an unsettled one.

I agree with you. The liberal activists are just using "gay marriage" as an excuse to attack theism. We can see this in the push to force the religious folks to recognize them on a religious level. They want to force pastors to marry them and allow them to use church facilities. If two consenting adults want to share in the governmental / legal benefits of living together then fine by my (whether those benefits should exist is a different argument). It's when they start demanding recognition from religions that I take issue. No one has that right.

I firmly believe that the term "marriage" should be treated the same way "baptism" and other assorted religious ceremony's are.

[Stubby]

You are absolutely right. Government can not or should not be able to force a religious group to accept someone or something against their doctrine.

The flip side is that religious groups can't or should not force a government or anyone else to accept their particular doctrine.

[GIThruster]

I agree with you. The liberal activists are just using "gay marriage" as an excuse to attack theism.

I think you're attributing motives to people other than what they say about themselves merely to get to the conclusion you want. Rather, I think those pressing for gay marriage should be taken at face value--that they merely want social approval. There are plenty of churches that marry gay and lesbian folks and there have been for ages. That's not what the dispute is about.

Your argument is clearly intentioned to come to the conclusion you've drawn quite apart from the facts and is thus completely facile and self serving.

[GIThruster]

You are absolutely right. Government can not or should not be able to force a religious group to accept someone or something against their doctrine.

The flip side is that religious groups can't or should not force a government or anyone else to accept their particular doctrine.

I agree completely, but would note to you that marriage is not a doctrine. It's a social institution, on par with things like religion, government, education, economics and family. It is in part the working definition of family wherever its found. Too, it's good to note that the institution we have for marriage here in the west predates Christian influence. It goes back to the Greek and Roman empires since well before the time of Christ, and only influenced mildly by the early Judeo practices. It's straining to call modern marriage a religious doctrine when it predates all current religions and doctrines. Rather, it's an institution informed by 6,000 years of civilization and arguably, the most progressive and fulfilling civilization--that found in the West.

Don't get me started detailing why we should all be proud of Western Civilization. Suffice it to say that everything else utterly lacks the kind of respect for humanity we all take for granted, and which is the basis for all humanism.

Too, I would note to you that anyone/everyone has the freedom to support their values in society and press for their general acceptance. Values are not somehow "out of bounds" just because they're informed by a religious tradition. You need to keep in mind that until Charlemagne, there was no basis for a separation of church and state. Values endure nonetheless, based upon things like their utility. In fact, it is the uniquely Judeo concept that all life is sacred, that originally gave rise to and has always supported all humanism. Without those values, God only knows to what depraved gutter we'd all belong.

If you're the art history type, you might like to point back to Michelangelo as the start of the Renaissance and the rise of Humanism, but if you are such a student of history, then it should be extremely obvious to you that it was Michelangelo's religion, that formed the basis if his humanism, and that he was several centuries behind Charlemagne.

[kcdodd]

Or, that we might want to be able to have the same kind of marriage our parents have. Not the Websters dictionary "one man one woman" kind of marriage. The "i love you because of you, so till death do us part" kind. Don't talk to me about tradition. I would like to keep the tradition of a loving marriage. The religious, and others, are the ones who are in fact trying to destroy that tradition for gay people, and instead insist to make it truly an "institution", like the kind you lock people up in. You can keep that for yourself, thank you.

[GIThruster]

The religious, and others, are the ones who are in fact trying to destroy that tradition for gay people, and instead insist to make it truly an "institution", like the kind you lock people up in. You can keep that for yourself, thank you.

There is no tradition of gay marriage that I'm aware of. Did you want to site one?

[palladin9479]

And GIT just joined D on my blocked list. The rhetoric was getting a bit too much to bear.

The only problem I see with my suggestion is that there are thousands of laws across the USA that use the term "marriage" as a legal term. Those would all have to be rewritten or modified in some way to divorce the legal and religious contexts of that term. And while I personally have no problem with two homosexuals calling themselves "married" I can see how the ultra religious folks, who happen to make up the core of the Republican party, would take that as a personal insult. Religious beliefs, like political ones, can make people do very irrational and unwise things for "the cause". I would prefer to not to back the ultra right any further into the corner then is necessary to prevent them from forming a theocracy.

[kcdodd]

The religious, and others, are the ones who are in fact trying to destroy that tradition for gay people, and instead insist to make it truly an "institution", like the kind you lock people up in. You can keep that for yourself, thank you.

There is no tradition of gay marriage that I'm aware of. Did you want to site one?

You didn't bother to read the part of my post you conveniently cut out of the quote. I know you probably won't read this one either, but I have a few minutes, so I guess why not try to explain it again for others. I am talking about the essence of marriage from the perspective of a gay person. I know you can't comprehend what that is. But if you are married, it should not be difficult for you to have empathy and see things from our perspective. You don't have to imagine being gay. Just imagine you hadn't been allowed to marry the person you did.

Surely you understand that a gay person would not, essentially by definition, derive the same emotional state if they married the opposite sex as a heterosexual would. According to the definition of "one man and one woman", the ONLY part of the tradition they would be following by doing so is being opposite sexed. Nothing else about that marriage would be genuine. So, to claim that a gay person can follow the tradition of marriage by doing so is, to me, disingenuous. Given that gay people actually exist , that definition is pitifully weak. What tradition is a gay person to follow? Well, all we need in that respect is with us already, the drive to pair in an emotional, and yes sexual, way passed down through generations. We try to follow the tradition with or without the law, or society, on our side. In this respect, the ONLY thing that "changes" is the combination of sexual parts; in the combination that feels natural to us. You can go on and try to figure out why there are gay people, but the reason is ultimately irrelevant.

Every rational argument put forward by the opposition to try and deny gay couples the same benefits afforded to heterosexuals has been disproved. Children: single parents, childless couples, to adoption, surrogacy, etc. These must resort to a double standard between gay/straight couples, and a hypocritical attitude, to defend. Others were debunked 50 years ago in the fight against interracial marriage. What's left are those that resort to calling us pedophiles and animal rapists. And still others who can't even think of a way to argue that gay marriage is bad, and instead argue about how bad man-tree marriage is. And finally, the bible thumpers who can't even take the personal responsibility to admit their own views, and instead hide behind selective quotes from "god's word" to do it for them, and cry that they're "just following orders" when they go after the gays. All that's left is simply that they think it's icky. Well, that's tough. I have to live with their existence too.

[MSimon]

There are lots of icky things I wouldn't deny others. Like eating bugs (formic acid from ants can be essential at a certain point in childhood - can't find a reference to that though). Or eating boogers - which I have to admit I did indulge in when I was quite young.

http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/Eating ... -You/49654

[TDPerk]

Speaking of icky things, I think this pun

" progressively adopting the error of Rousseau"

was worth at least a groan in reply.

[Stubby]

And GIT just joined D on my blocked list. The rhetoric was getting a bit too much to bear.

The problem with blocking them is that some of their views, reprehensible that they may be, will go unchallenged. That would be a shame. That would be like letting a dandelion go to seed.

[Diogenes]

And GIT just joined D on my blocked list. The rhetoric was getting a bit too much to bear.

The only problem I see with my suggestion is that there are thousands of laws across the USA that use the term "marriage" as a legal term. Those would all have to be rewritten or modified in some way to divorce the legal and religious contexts of that term. And while I personally have no problem with two homosexuals calling themselves "married" I can see how the ultra religious folks, who happen to make up the core of the Republican party, would take that as a personal insult. Religious beliefs, like political ones, can make people do very irrational and unwise things for "the cause". I would prefer to not to back the ultra right any further into the corner then is necessary to prevent them from forming a theocracy.

You are a loon. If you have blocked me it is likely because it has become your habit over the years to block out anything which might leak some common sense or reason into you.

Theocracy? Again, the only response which comes to mind is "you are a loon."

[Diogenes]

And GIT just joined D on my blocked list. The rhetoric was getting a bit too much to bear.

The problem with blocking them is that some of their views, reprehensible that they may be, will go unchallenged. That would be a shame. That would be like letting a dandelion go to seed.

A Dandelion is appropriate. I have long suspected you have a mind filled with Dandelion fluff. Well, fluff of some sort anyway.