Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I think comparing polygamy to beastiality is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't remember any old testament stories of folks getting it on with their camels but I can sure tell you there was a lot of polygamy in there!

Part of the issue is the law is based upon a christian sense of morality. Unfortunately, you have to completely separate your faith from the discussion in order to rationalize a vaid argument for gay rights, polygamy, and ect. IMO you can't include the possiblity for one argument over the other because of preference or faith.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think comparing polygamy to beastiality is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't remember any old testament stories of folks getting it on with their camels but I can sure tell you there was a lot of polygamy in there!

Part of the issue is the law is based upon a christian sense of morality. Unfortunately, you have to completely separate your faith from the discussion in order to rationalize a vaid argument for gay rights, polygamy, and ect. IMO you can't include the possiblity for one argument over the other because of preference or faith.

If you're going to base civil laws like marriage on a sense of religious morality, why stop with banning gay marriages? Why not outlaw sex outside of marriage? Or gay sex in general? Beyond the obvious denial of civil rights for gays, there is a lapse of logic if one believes civil laws should be rooted in a particular religious morality. And don't even get me started on even defining what is 'christian morality'....you're claiming that your sense of what that is, is share by all Christians and that simply isn't true.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think comparing polygamy to beastiality is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't remember any old testament stories of folks getting it on with their camels but I can sure tell you there was a lot of polygamy in there!

Part of the issue is the law is based upon a christian sense of morality. Unfortunately, you have to completely separate your faith from the discussion in order to rationalize a vaid argument for gay rights, polygamy, and ect. IMO you can't include the possiblity for one argument over the other because of preference or faith.

If you're going to base civil laws like marriage on a sense of religious morality, why stop with banning gay marriages? Why not outlaw sex outside of marriage? Or gay sex in general? Beyond the obvious denial of civil rights for gays, there is a lapse of logic if one believes civil laws should be rooted in a particular religious morality. And don't even get me started on even defining what is 'christian morality'....you're claiming that your sense of what that is, is share by all Christians and that simply isn't true.

Yeah but he isn't wrong though... the laws we have (esp. pertaining to marriage) were designed after a religious ideal of what is morally acceptabe - that's not particularly controversial. What is happening now is that this established morality is coming into conflict with the practices of a group of people who are essentially marginalised by the existing laws. Its really the whole separation of church and state - that we're getting away from the founding basis for those laws and making them more secular.

I see his point totally - but I don't think the practicality of applying the rule to all "non standard" groups makes those other things feasible, at least in the current climate.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah but he isn't wrong though... the laws we have (esp. pertaining to marriage) were designed after a religious ideal of what is morally acceptabe - that's not particularly controversial. What is happening now is that this established morality is coming into conflict with the practices of a group of people who are essentially marginalised by the existing laws. Its really the whole separation of church and state - that we're getting away from the founding basis for those laws and making them more secular.

I see his point totally - but I don't think the practicality of applying the rule to all "non standard" groups makes those other things feasible, at least in the current climate.

We have a standard and that is our Constitution, whatever influences shaped it, the fundamental principle is equality. Any laws that deny that to a particular group of people are ignoring the purpose of our Constitution. In that sense, I don't think our civil laws were formulated based on some religious sense of morality. In fact if you look at the history of marriage in civil law, it had more to do with property rights, rather than an acknowledgment of some sacramental union.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah but he isn't wrong though... the laws we have (esp. pertaining to marriage) were designed after a religious ideal of what is morally acceptabe - that's not particularly controversial. What is happening now is that this established morality is coming into conflict with the practices of a group of people who are essentially marginalised by the existing laws. Its really the whole separation of church and state - that we're getting away from the founding basis for those laws and making them more secular.

I see his point totally - but I don't think the practicality of applying the rule to all "non standard" groups makes those other things feasible, at least in the current climate.

We have a standard and that is our Constitution, whatever influences shaped it, the fundamental principle is equality. Any laws that deny that to a particular group of people are ignoring the purpose of our Constitution. In that sense, I don't think our civil laws were formulated based on some religious sense of morality. In fact if you look at the history of marriage in civil law, it had more to do with property rights, rather than an acknowledgment of some sacramental union.

Right - but there's an obvious reason why the popular view of marriage comprises one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship and that view is reflected at least somewhat in the laws that shape what actually constitutes marriage. Its not a coincidence to point out that there were old laws that made gay sx or interracial marriage illegal. This stuff had to come from some sort of ideology... Its a given that there's a general movement towards secularism as regards civil rights and civil law, but that's only a relatively recent phenomenon.

As I say he's right to point out the defining structure of what those laws are. The fairness of those laws is essentially a different conversation.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I think comparing polygamy to beastiality is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't remember any old testament stories of folks getting it on with their camels but I can sure tell you there was a lot of polygamy in there!

i liked your other name better

[Sister Fracas 5]

ROFL. I haven't read any farther than this post. Did anyone say anything ignorant yet?

same old, same old...

[almaty 19]

the beat goes on sister fracas...and on and on

[Alhamdulillah 0]

i liked your other name better

Why? The truth bothers you?

[almaty 19]

i liked your other name better

Why? The truth bothers you?

i like your new name sister......cause sometimes..luv suxs...

[Alhamdulillah 0]

sometimes..luv suxs...

Indeed it does brother...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

i liked your other name better

Why? The truth bothers you?

Your new name is too teeny bopperish.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Your new name is too teeny bopperish.

You'd prefer I claimed trolldom of some sort?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Your new name is too teeny bopperish.

You'd prefer I claimed trolldom of some sort?

No. You wouldn't make a very good troll.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

i liked your other name better

Why? The truth bothers you?

not it in the least, i thought that other name was more fitting for you.