Shadow Link
Active Member
Living within ones own means isn't one of them?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you support gay marriage?
- Thread starter Woberts
- Start date
Whuh?
Where is even one wrong?
Tom
Overpopulation is the singular wrong I've seen.
I am with you on that.
I'd even go a step further. Having potentially fertile sex, when you aren't willing and able to provide a safe and secure and ample childhood for another human being, should be a crime.
If you can't start an adequate college fund, keep your pants on. Maybe later....
Tom
Shadow Link
Active Member
..."most moral"?
Shad
Veteran Member
But meh sexual freedom!
I agree regarding responsibility involved not necessarily making it a crime. It is far more socially acceptable to be a moron having children than punishing said moron. This is a problem with the sexual "revolution" as a lot of people dropped their brains along the way.
I don't believe in freedom, per se.
Freedom and personal responsibility I am good with.
I don't have a problem punishing people who drive drunk, without waiting for them to actually kill somebody. Sex is about as dangerous, possibly fertile sex anyways.
So yeah, I am a hardcore prude.
Tom
Shad
Veteran Member
I was referencing how many lost their heads when social pressure was no longer a major influence on one's sexual conduct. Ergo the sexual revolution.
My issue is general criminal punishment may not be suitable to correct the issue. I lean toward reform of government aid including cutting people off and social changes regarding conduct.
No. The benefits and rights should be exactly the same between marriage and civil union. Anything other is simply 'separate, but equal' and is, frankly, garbage.
If a state gives some benefits to those who are straight and married, they should give *exactly* the same benefits to those who are not straight, but are in 'civil unions'. That includes whatever requirements there are for companies to give benefits if the couple moves there.
Okay, if that's where you're heading, then governments should have no interference in any of your personal relationships...including marriage. Thus, nobody would have more or less rights or obligations, under law, with those to whom they are married, or who they are parents of, or children of, or friends of, or enemies of.
Very, very "libertarian" I'm sure, but do you think it's wise?
Well, I do see it as problematic that marriage laws vary from state to state, even for straights. But, at the very minimum, it needs to be stated that a marriage in one state will be recognized by every other state. So, if a couple gets married in California, then that marriage will be honored in Alabama with whatever benefits accrue to marriages there.
I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point here. If my wife and I do not ever want to have children, does that invalidate our marriage? If we state that intent before getting married, should that mean we would not be allowed to get married?
Why? Where is the study that suggests that there is a difference … in other words, why are we allowing opposite sex parents to raise children, if there's been no study to show they do it better than, say, handing them over to professionals, as happened to me?
You presume that your status quo is the definition against which all other arrangements must prove themselves, but why can I not make the same assumption about my own status quo?
Especially given, as I've pointed out, that your status quo failed so miserably in my case, and in the cases of all those other children that I grew up with in care of the Children's Aid. Or those people who spend billions seeking therapy to recover from their own upbringing. Or all those who were brought up by single parents, or family surrogates, just because one or both parents, died, or because of divorce, financial catastrophe, or any other possible occurrence? How many studies do you want to run, exactly?
Marriage producing fewest offspring.
Shadow Link
Active Member
Depends. But let's not try so much to deviate from the scope of my original post to try and create fallacies. The "Intent" I've mentioned has to do with having awareness.
So, will you be careful from now on not to speak on behalf of people you have no business second guessing?
It truly bothered me that you failed to take such a simple and necessary precaution.
Even if that truly happened, it is still incredibly disconnected and disrespectful.
Shadow Link
Active Member
Sure, as long as you lay off of the estrogen pills. It isn't working well with your superiority complex.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
"Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal to at least some degree in thirty-eight states, one territory (Guam) and the District of Columbia; of the states, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama had restrictions."
In 2012, prior to United States v. Windsor, it was only legal in 12 states and Washington D.C..
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia
Prior to Obergefell vs Hodges, the state of Alabama banned the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of such marriages from other jurisdictions by executive order of the Governor in 1996, by statute in 1998, and by constitutional amendment in June 2006.
Same-sex marriage in Alabama - Wikipedia
Maybe with a more conservative Supreme Court, soon each state could once again exercise its own state's right to allow/deny gay marriage within and from other jurisdictions.