Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

MAybe... and maybe you are living in the distant past.

Sex is only one benefit yet not a requirement, some people are unable to have sex at all!..... see Hunt for more details.

How very mature of you, Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, no contract can validate provisions that are already unenforcable under current laws, but people are always free to enter into contracts they regret later. And, anyone who enters a marriage expecting fidelity needs to understand that that promise is not only unenforcable under law, but only as good as the character of the person or persons making the promise. Short-sightedness and disappointment can happen in any marriage. Commitment includes risk, and no contract can eliminate it.

No one is expecting a contract to eliminate risk. While everyone enters a marriage with an expectation that it will last for the life time of the commitment they agree to, everyone also knows that things can and do go wrong, even when one has scrutinized the 'character' of the person to whom one commits and vice versa. Things as they say do change.

However, no one should be placed in a position where they enter a marriage in good faith, with an undertandable expectation of fidelity only to find that that contract has no legal foundation. As things stand, one can legally exit a marriage where there is infidelity and be compensated for the time one has invested in that marriage. The same should be true if the rules are changed to include plural marriage. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

[Peikko 1,575]

MAybe... and maybe you are living in the distant past.

Sex is only one benefit yet not a requirement, some people are unable to have sex at all!..... see Hunt for more details.

It's not about sex Danno, not really. Fidelity relates to the complete emotional relationship not just the sexual one.

[Danno 1,228]

QUOTE (Danno @ Mar 7 2010, 03:33 PM)

People living in multi partner relationships are everywhere and the majority I would bet have no Religious motivations.

What facts is this supposition based on?

I have been aware of several households with three people in the relationship, I am sure some here have known of some others.

I said I would bet, most that live this lifestyle do not do it with religion as the motivating factor, do you doubt this?

We hear about the religious ones so much because they make a much more interesting story to cover, they come complete with, a cluster of like families, multitudes of kids, even odd apparel at times.

Were as the swingers turned family, only has the novelty of -The people next door, plus one.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

That is an issue - if you truly open it up to multiple partners you are essentially destroying the concept of marriage in a definable way. You might as well do away with it entirely - but even if you do that, it still doesn't address the fundamental conflicts that doing so creates with the law. You would have to rewrite those laws as well.

I still have a suspicion that as a contract, the notion of fidelity is implicit in the marriage contract. If it is not, one wonders what the point of it is at all beyond providing for a legal conduit for the transfer of wealth from from parent to child (I would have thought it was integral to the contract also, that one could have confidence that any child produced was a product of the marriage not a cuckoo) - and that notion would be seriously compromised if not altogether rendered moot by plural marriage. If there is any implied contractual obligation at all it would be fidelity.

QUOTE (Danno @ Mar 7 2010, 03:33 PM)

People living in multi partner relationships are everywhere and the majority I would bet have no Religious motivations.

I have been aware of several households with three people in the relationship, I am sure some here have known of some others.

I said I would bet, most that live this lifestyle do not do it with religion as the motivating factor, do you doubt this?

We hear about the religious ones so much because they make a much more interesting story to cover, they come complete with, a cluster of like families, multitudes of kids, even odd apparel at times.

Were as the swingers turned family, only has the novelty of -The people next door, plus one.

No, I don't have any personal knowledge of such families. If they exist at all, they must all be living near you.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

QUOTE (Danno @ Mar 7 2010, 03:33 PM)

People living in multi partner relationships are everywhere and the majority I would bet have no Religious motivations.

I have been aware of several households with three people in the relationship, I am sure some here have known of some others.

I said I would bet, most that live this lifestyle do not do it with religion as the motivating factor, do you doubt this?

We hear about the religious ones so much because they make a much more interesting story to cover, they come complete with, a cluster of like families, multitudes of kids, even odd apparel at times.

Were as the swingers turned family, only has the novelty of -The people next door, plus one.

Yes, Danno - I doubt it.

[Ali G. 37]

Multiple partners is going to be the next bandwagon issue 'forced' upon us. The same group of folks will come out and say 'what right do you have to tell someone how to live yada yada yada'.. The rest of us will then basically have to just take that too..

Edited March 8, 2010 by Booyah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Multiple partners is going to be the next bandwagon issue 'forced' upon us. The same group of folks will come out and say 'what right do you have to tell someone how to live yada yada yada'..

It might be, but that isn't the issue for today.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

A canon of the law is based in the belief that there is a God, a Creator, and that our rights come from the blessing of unalienable or natural rights from that God. To what extent it should be is debatable, but you wouldnt have an argument for gay marriage without an acceptance on the part of the founders that God had a hand in the establishment of this nation and that the nation has a duty to to protect their birthright to liberty and equality.

The Preamble to the Constitution, while bearing no force in law, is a reflection of the intent of its authors.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the clause in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming that inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental to the security of the individual, was very effusive about the debt to God. Excerpts from several of his writings refer to the separation of the rights of man and the duties of government.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135

"The Giver of life gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1782. ME 4:196, Papers 6:186

"I sincerely pray that all the members of the human family may, in the time prescribed by the Father of us all, find themselves securely established in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Ellicot Thomas, et al., 1807. ME 16:290

Jefferson was not an author of the Constitution; there were several, but he was a great influence on it. James Madison, commonly referred to as the Father of the Constitution, strong advocate of the Bill of Rights, and the major author of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, was similarly influenced by the concept of natural law through his study of John Locke.

As I stated before, the interpretation of law is predicated on the intent of the authors. The rights haven't changed, but how they are applied and to whom has changed. This is a not an evolution of rights, it is an elevation of understanding.

If you've been following my posts, you will see that I have made the argument for legal polygamy in the US, which follows the arguement for gay marriage, so, I am right on topic. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the founders did recognize a God, a Creator, and cited that fact in the principles outlined in their founding documents; the same principles that are used to justify a right to gay marriage. And while they did not single out a religion to dominate, Christianity was a major model for their morality.

As are you and neither are you.

So even if we're going to say that only one religion was represented by the founding fathers - even though that's clearly not the case as some of the founding fathers belonged to various denominations of the Protestant Church, some were Catholic and some were anti-clerical and vocal opponents of organized religion - then we're still left with the fact that the interpretation of the rights that all men are to have in this country has evolved since the nation was founded. As it is, this is really a side-track from the issue at hand which is that the founders held that 1) all men are created equal and 2) that each individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the God given rights). The founding fathers did not say anything about these God given rights only being extended to certain individuals. And that is what we're talking about - whether or not the right to marry can be denied to those that happen to be homosexual.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A canon of the law is based in the belief that there is a God, a Creator, and that our rights come from the blessing of unalienable or natural rights from that God. To what extent it should be is debatable, but you wouldnt have an argument for gay marriage without an acceptance on the part of the founders that God had a hand in the establishment of this nation and that the nation has a duty to to protect their birthright to liberty and equality.

The Preamble to the Constitution, while bearing no force in law, is a reflection of the intent of its authors.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the clause in the Declaration of Independence proclaiming that inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental to the security of the individual, was very effusive about the debt to God. Excerpts from several of his writings refer to the separation of the rights of man and the duties of government.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:211, Papers 1:135

"The Giver of life gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1782. ME 4:196, Papers 6:186

"I sincerely pray that all the members of the human family may, in the time prescribed by the Father of us all, find themselves securely established in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Ellicot Thomas, et al., 1807. ME 16:290

Jefferson was not an author of the Constitution; there were several, but he was a great influence on it. James Madison, commonly referred to as the Father of the Constitution, strong advocate of the Bill of Rights, and the major author of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, was similarly influenced by the concept of natural law through his study of John Locke.

As I stated before, the interpretation of law is predicated on the intent of the authors. The rights haven't changed, but how they are applied and to whom has changed. This is a not an evolution of rights, it is an elevation of understanding.

If you've been following my posts, you will see that I have made the argument for legal polygamy in the US, which follows the arguement for gay marriage, so, I am right on topic. You simply refuse to accept the fact that the founders did recognize a God, a Creator, and cited that fact in the principles outlined in their founding documents; the same principles that are used to justify a right to gay marriage. And while they did not single out a religion to dominate, Christianity was a major model for their morality.

Interesting that out of all the founding fathers you selected Jefferson, one of the two - the other being Benjamin Franklin - that wasn't precisely a follower of organized religion. Quite the opposite, actually, all the while believing in a "supreme being" - God. The myths and supernatural parts of the Bible, however, he rejected. He wrote his own, as a matter of fact - the Jefferson Bible. You can see Jefferson's writing in all the references to "the law of nature". Organized religion did not fancy Thomas Jefferson either. He famously wrote in 1800 to Benjamin Rush:

I have a view of the subject [Christianity] which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

The rights haven't changed, but how they are applied and to whom has changed. This is a not an evolution of rights, it is an elevation of understanding.

And here, we agree.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Don't forget, I am a Muslim, and am not inclined to advocate Christianity as a faith. I am, however, a student of history, and while aware of the varying inclinations of the founders, including Jefferson's doubts, the bottom line is, God is cited more than once as the dispenser of natural born liberties and rights in Jefferson's writings, in the founding documents and in the law. The wording is there, the precedent is evident. I'm not sure why that needs to be disputed, especially if it allows for the marriage rights you support and seek for gays.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't forget, I am a Muslim, and am not inclined to advocate Christianity as a faith. I am, however, a student of history, and while aware of the varying inclinations of the founders, including Jefferson's doubts, the bottom line is, God is cited more than once as the dispenser of natural born liberties and rights in Jefferson's writings, in the founding documents and in the law. The wording is there, the precedent is evident. I'm not sure why that needs to be disputed, especially if it allows for the marriage rights you support and seek for gays.

I'm not disputing that there is reference to a God that creates life and gives rights. All I am saying is that no biblical interpretation of these rights should be assumed since the founding fathers did not intent for that to happen.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not disputing that there is reference to a God that creates life and gives rights. All I am saying is that no biblical interpretation of these rights should be assumed since the founding fathers did not intent for that to happen.

I haven't refered to the Bible, but I also can't rationally deny a Biblical influence in the laws, their interpretation and application. It was the major religion in the country, even then. And, a history of statutory and case law in the US shows that Biblical interpretations not only abounded around the country - the allowance for Sunday as a day of rest from work, the celebration of Christian holidays in schools and other government institutions, Blue laws, for example - but were considered constitutional for generations, and still does.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I haven't refered to the Bible, but I also can't rationally deny a Biblical influence in the laws, their interpretation and application. It was the major religion in the country, even then. And, a history of statutory and case law in the US shows that Biblical interpretations not only abounded around the country - the allowance for Sunday as a day of rest from work, the celebration of Christian holidays in schools and other government institutions, Blue laws, for example - but were considered constitutional for generations, and still does.

I'll tell you that they take Sundays as a day of rest much more serious outside of the US. Try to go shopping on Sundays in Europe and don't bother bringing a wallet - the stores are closed. As is just about everything outside of infrastructure and emergency services. That's certainly not the case in the US. Sure, you can't buy alcohol prior to noon on Sundays in many states but - while I sure don't - people in general are working their azzes off on the supposed day of rest.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dan J 277]

Multiple partners is going to be the next bandwagon issue 'forced' upon us. The same group of folks will come out and say 'what right do you have to tell someone how to live yada yada yada'.. The rest of us will then basically have to just take that too..

Forced? I think it might happen out of economic necessity.