havok579257 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790549' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:57 PM']I don't care what the structure of marriage is so long as all the parties involved are adults concenting to the arrangment. That would not include "human-animal" marriages as an animal has no was to concent to such an arrangment.[/quote] so brother/sister marriage are ok? well what makes your opinion better and more important that the majority of the usa which says incest marriages are wrong? my point is, why should a small minority get to over rule the majority of the country? which is what your implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790556' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:04 PM']According to the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunatly for you your Church is not the foundation of our secular state. If you cannot present an objective argument demonstrating the sacrosanct nature of marriage and one that is in line with what the Church calls a "sacrament" then you have no right, in a secular government, to try and use the lagal system to coerce other members of the population to conform to your religious faith.[/quote] actually, you have every right granted by the consitution to try and get the congress/ majority to see your point of view and change laws accordingly. you have that right granted to you by the for-fathers of this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790559' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:05 PM']so brother/sister marriage are ok? well what makes your opinion better and more important that the majority of the usa which says incest marriages are wrong? my point is, why should a small minority get to over rule the majority of the country? which is what your implying.[/quote] My oppinion is not restricting the liberty of other individuals. If you seek to restrict the rights of others you should have an objectively verifiable reason for it, something accesable to everyone, not some private revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790562' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:07 PM']actually, you have every right granted by the consitution to try and get the congress/ majority to see your point of view and change laws accordingly. you have that right granted to you by the for-fathers of this nation.[/quote] And with rights, comes responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790569' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:10 PM']My oppinion is not restricting the liberty of other individuals. If you seek to restrict the rights of others you should have an objectively verifiable reason for it, something accesable to everyone, not some private revelation.[/quote] the problem with your train of thought is over 90% of Amerians believe incest is wrong. So why should the 90% of american's who believe it should be illegal have to just deal with it becuase a small minority thinks its ok? This is a democracy. Its the same with elections. Majority wins. In this country, in this democratic country, that's how it should be. If it is not, then its not a democratic society. As of right now, the majority of American's are against gay marriage as evident by everytime it gets put on a ballot. So why should it be legal if the majority of the country does not think it should be legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1790573' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:12 PM']And with rights, comes responsibility.[/quote] responsibility to make moral decisions, which is what those against gay marriage believe they are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='missionseeker' post='1790368' date='Feb 24 2009, 01:35 PM']It's all based on dignity of personhood. We all have it. SSA or not. And we are called to respect the dignity of ourselves and everyone else. SSA or not. We are all given struggles. Some struggle with SSA. Some struggle with pedophilia, some struggle with sex addiction, some with pride, some with gluttony, some with sloth, some with various other things. Our struggles should not impede the dignity of our person or of other persons' persons.[/quote] For a woman to be exposed to the lustful gaze of men is harmful to her dignity. In fact we must respect Muhammad (SAW) example, which respets women to the fullest extent possible. Men and women must be legally coerced to lower their gaze when the other approaches. A man should not look at a woman who is not his wife or immediate family, a woman must not expose her hair to the gaze of men. We must require women to cover ther adornments restrict their movement outside the house because to do otherwise is to degrade her as a human being, and risk a man's fall from the tru path into sin. A man exposing himself from the navel to the knees also degrades him as a creation of Allah (SAT) and invites women into sin. Just like your understanding of human dignity my Muslim friends are free to beleive this, but until they can demonstrate the oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad they have no right to coerce others to fll in line with their understanding of the dignity of the human person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790580' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:16 PM']responsibility to make moral decisions, which is what those against gay marriage believe they are making.[/quote] Yes, they beleive it. Do they have any rational, objectively verifiable reason for beleiving it? If not then it is irresponsible to coerce others into their arbitrary assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790522' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:24 PM']Its mathamatically more proboble that there is a creator of the universe and everything in it than it all being by accident.[/quote] Do you have some mathematical proofs you wish to show us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
track2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='Sirklawd' post='1790343' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:54 PM']So whats the problem with this? It means the government must recognize any and all forms of marriage, past, present and future. Whatever anyone can come up with. Essentially, this will mean the government will be handing out these rights to basically everyone. Aside from being a joke, it raises the question that no one in this debate is asking - why does the government even give out these rights to married people in the first place?? Why not just give them to everyone from the start? or the reverse - why not just not give them out and shut everyone up? Either all forms of marriage are equal - and thus no one is special, or a particular definition of marriage [i]is[/i] important to society, and needs to be encouraged above the rest. Can those in favor of gay marriage come up with a reason? Those in favor of traditional marriage can.[/quote] Marriage in the state's view is essentially just a contract, right. You sign a piece of paper saying that you and your wife or husband are going to go this together. So all the crazy forms of marriage you were talking about don't work because (1) kids, animals, etc. can't enter into a contract and (2) generally more than 2 people can't enter into a contract. Contract law says animals cannot enter into a contract, period. They can't manifest assent. Doesn't happen. No way. No how. No one can marry an animal (besides, you know, humans). Contract law says minors can only sign voidable contracts. It's a technicality, but it means kids wouldn't be able to marry. Just like now. Kids can't marry. Contracts can be restricted to be between two people. You can't marry a corporation (even though it gets treated like a person under the law). Two corporations can't marry (they can merge but that's different, mostly). It is generally hard to get more than two people (or other entities) to manifest mutual assent (the basis for contract law) because Party 6 will have a problem with Party 1's terms even though Parties 2 thru 5 are cool. Contract law is based on the idea that if two people agree to something then they should be able to do it. You want to sell your house to me for $20, we can sign the papers and we're good. You want to do my (your old) lawn work and charge me $100 and hour, if I agree, we're good. You want to do anything short of something illegal and we're good. So why does contract law bar me from marring a girl? No other contract requires anything about the gender of the parties. And doesn't basing something on gender feel kind of arbitrary. I'm an adult, I want to enter into a contract with another adult, what's so wrong with that? Under the rest of current normal contract law, nothing. Under current marriage laws, something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 +J.M.J.+ [quote name='Norseman82' post='1790314' date='Feb 24 2009, 08:46 AM'][mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod][/quote] [quote name='Hassan' post='1790545' date='Feb 24 2009, 02:52 PM'][mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod][/quote] if you two are going to continue on this discussion, then please keep in mind that there are young people that not only post on this site, but also 'lurk'. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='track2004' post='1790609' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:37 PM']Marriage in the state's view is essentially just a contract, right. You sign a piece of paper saying that you and your wife or husband are going to go this together. So all the crazy forms of marriage you were talking about don't work because (1) kids, animals, etc. can't enter into a contract and (2) generally more than 2 people can't enter into a contract. Contract law says animals cannot enter into a contract, period. They can't manifest assent. Doesn't happen. No way. No how. No one can marry an animal (besides, you know, humans). Contract law says minors can only sign voidable contracts. It's a technicality, but it means kids wouldn't be able to marry. Just like now. Kids can't marry. Contracts can be restricted to be between two people. You can't marry a corporation (even though it gets treated like a person under the law). Two corporations can't marry (they can merge but that's different, mostly). It is generally hard to get more than two people (or other entities) to manifest mutual assent (the basis for contract law) because Party 6 will have a problem with Party 1's terms even though Parties 2 thru 5 are cool. Contract law is based on the idea that if two people agree to something then they should be able to do it. You want to sell your house to me for $20, we can sign the papers and we're good. You want to do my (your old) lawn work and charge me $100 and hour, if I agree, we're good. You want to do anything short of something illegal and we're good. So why does contract law bar me from marring a girl? No other contract requires anything about the gender of the parties. And doesn't basing something on gender feel kind of arbitrary. I'm an adult, I want to enter into a contract with another adult, what's so wrong with that? Under the rest of current normal contract law, nothing. Under current marriage laws, something.[/quote] You are free to enter to contract, you are not free to call it a marriage. Marriage has a religious origin and is a relationship between a man and woman for unity and procreation. Because of its value to society, society has made rules to protect the relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
track2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1790559' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:05 PM']so brother/sister marriage are ok? well what makes your opinion better and more important that the majority of the usa which says incest marriages are wrong? my point is, why should a small minority get to over rule the majority of the country? which is what your implying.[/quote] I don't think we'd be ruling over the majority. It's not like we'd have any affect on your marriage or your rights to get one. It's not like we'd be running around teaching our kids how bad those straights are. And beyond that, there is something inherently dangerous about a democracy: that the majority rules, sometimes at a great cost to minorities. Just because 51% of people agree doesn't mean it is right or fair. The role of government is to protect [i]all[/i] of it's people. Look, whole Wiki article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/url] . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1790616' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:41 PM']You are free to enter to contract, you are not free to call it a marriage. Marriage has a religious origin and is a relationship between a man and woman for unity and procreation. Because of its value to society, society has made rules to protect the relationship.[/quote] If I might also add something? I've always considered marriage to also be a covenant relationship that exceeds that of a simple contract; as you were saying it has a religious origin. A covenant is to a contract, at least in my opinion, as a game of baseball is to a game of freeze tag. Infinitely more complex and fulfilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
track2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1790616' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:41 PM']You are free to enter to contract, you are not free to call it a marriage. Marriage has a religious origin and is a relationship between a man and woman for unity and procreation. Because of its value to society, society has made rules to protect the relationship.[/quote] Slavery has a religious origin. The death penalty has a religious origin. We changed those rules; we can change this one. It is of value to society. It is of value to me and I want it. But I [b]cannot[/b] enter into the contract. And part of me doesn't care if it is called marriage (part of me does because it means something to my mother). I'm not free to enter into the contract. I can't because of your rules. And I'm looking to change them. And as we go society is on my side. God can say what he wants and you can say what you want, but contract law doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now