California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear. How do you suggest legislating sexual morality in a pluralistic society--i.e. pretty much all societies? And the issue which follows this is, how do you enforce legislation of sexual morality? I don't believe this is possible without a serious invasion of privacy rights, and the right to free expression. Please do show me why I'm wrong. The most basic laws are to protect life, safety, and (sometimes) property. That is not at all the same thing as the government trying to outlaw "immoral" sexual practices.

1) You cant, and it is a reason why we still have nothing in all states that actually penalizes bestiality which a majority can agree is a sexual perversion/deviance. Statutory rape laws are hybrid, in my opinion.

2) Like above, how private should a person be? After all our interpretation today on the "right to privacy" only came about with Griswold v Connecticut. Obviously it was assumed before.

3) My belief is there should be some form of penalty to things generally understood to be "wrong". I think we today have interpreted our rights and freedoms to something that were not intentioned. I am not suggesting anything, but something I feel must be done.



And to be honest, I would not be so against homosexual "marriage" if marriage became something that was difficult to attain. That is, if marriage became something strict it would limit the amounts of people getting married, and by doing so limit the amounts of divorce (as it would be difficult to divorce without justification).

Oops! My bad. We all began talking about the subject of my thread in this one, which confused me.

The distinction is not absolute, nor should it be.
Having only laws based purely on perceived practicalities would be insufficient to govern a society fairly.

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 May 2008, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Extreme example for the sake of argument:
Do you believe child porn should be illegal to be possessed? If you do, then you're for legislating morality.
We're all for legislating morality to one extent or another.
That people are against legislating morality is a pipe dream; the law is based on right and wrong,
and hinges upon whether or not one can instinctively tell the difference.

i realize the failed logic here...you take it as all of YOUR morals should be legislated whereas you don't have any consideration for others. law is obviously morality in the sense of a basic code of conduct...it's inseparable. however, the separation is functionless morality like many of the arbitrary laws found within religious texts that may have been applicable and useful back in BC or even so far as 1500AD or later but many of the needs for those laws have disappeared as technology has gotten better and people have been able to operate more freely without the troubles previously caused by breaking those laws (take the muslim and jewish dietary laws regarding pork and shellfish for example).

laws are also in place to keep a semblance of order within society and again, this is constantly redrawn as better understanding is achieved on how society operates and how the individual operates.

you're still wrong..but it's mostly just because you're dismissive of scientific, technological, and medical progress.

1) Your want in changing the definition of marriage is part of your moral agenda.

2) Nowhere have I brought religion as a focal point of my argument. You are blinded by your disdain towards religion and so you feel the need to constantly bring it up.

3) The part of Semblance of Order within a Society can be taken into consideration many ways. Just think about it.

4) I would like to understand your logic on me being dismissive of science, technology and medical practices. Really, I would like to. Considering that I'm against homosexual marriage, I don't see any of these coming into conflict with that stance.

Oh, goodie! Now we get to apply to the government so they can tell us if we can get legally married or not. That's not open to abuse at all.

Why shouldn't it? How many people marry to only divorce a month later? How many are coerced into marriage or marry with infidelities in mind?

As noted already, it is a "contract" with legal status.

Right, and as a contract, why can't it just be covered under contract law? The US government is not involved with creating and directly officiating every contract in existence, so why this one?

If marriage is not legally binding, then it is not serious.
If marriage is serious, then it is legally binding.

It's considered important,

You tell me. I have no reason to believe that this accounts for a significant percentage of marriages, and surely we should establish that fact before setting up what conservatives like to call a nanny state. Even divorce statistics can be misleading because they frequently refer to couples who married several decades previously. In previous times, people wouldn't even have lived that long to divorce each other. Personally, I think that if we want to take marriage seriously, we should stop treating it as a license to engage in sexual experiences.

All the more reason to take it further away from the government.

you're right. except my side hurts no one and you've yet to present any evidence otherwise. yours promotes discrimination based upon what is otherwise none of your damned business.



and nowhere have you brought any proof or even tried to disprove the pro argument other than stating your obviously ignorant points of view which are obviously derived from the christian faith. and i know that because no one else in the western world gives as much of a rat's ass about it as christians do. simple logic. something you're not capable of.



no, i'm not playing garbage semantics games with you. you've yet to present point 1 of a REAL reason for gay marriage to not be legalized.



easy. you're not interested in facts. you've proven that over and over again in this thread. considering your religious preference, your militant stance within that preference, and your outspoken nature on such obvious issues, you most likely aren't the biggest supporter of therapeutic clone and likewise, you probably won't listen to sociological studies that say that gay marriage doesn't harm society and that kids of homosexual parents still grow up normal and healthy. of course since i'm calling you out on it, you can easily just dismiss it (this is the land of pretend, afterall)...but i'm not playing chess so i don't care if i move early.

1) How can you declare that which involves society is not part of my business? Do people marry and retreat to the forests?


2) You are incapable of acknowledging other faiths. You have proven yourself anti-Christian.

Let me quote to you from the al quran il karim:

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women."

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!"

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you."


India? They'll arrest and punish you if you are a homosexual. Neither Manu nor the Yajnavalkya smrti state that a marriage is to be between the same sexes.


3) You have yet to present a convincing one either. There is nothing in marriage that a homosexual can or should attain.


4) What does that have to do with Science, Technology, and Medical practices? You're just insulting my position against same-sex marriage.