Outrageous? Or logical? Does it matter?
Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago to Culture
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
And I know how you feel. I, too, remember all kinds of stuff. Even stuff I never knew. ;-)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/03/...
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/13/richard-to...
That said, I can easily see someone going crazy screaming like that maniac college kid that I posted about how its not fair and its hate speech for preaching the Bible and refusing to perform a gay wedding. IN fact I fully expect the ACLU, the government, the left, and many others (won't go into it) having fits whenever someone is denied a wedding or a cake because the pastor, baker, photographer wishes no part of a gay union.
That doesn't mean that "anything goes" as you seem to imply. I think that a rational society can devise rules/limits that are reasonable. I, for one, prefer in this instance to apply contract law. That at least gets us to people and limits insanities like this person proposes.
Personally I think the government has no place in Marriage at all and should be limited strictly to contractual agreements (civil unions). This said, I've read of a woman marrying a dolphin and a man marrying a tree. Go figure.
And, I can recognize that a contract exists in another state without acting on the same in my state. Thus, when I transit a state line I must obey the speed limit in the state that I am in, regardless of whether my home state has a different speed limit, or helmet law, or laws regarding smoking, etc. ad nauseum.
And, if marriage were reverted to contract law, there is a very distinct history to follow for guidance.
Jan
Why do homosexuals want the absurdity of "gay marriage"?
1) to destroy the cultural tradition of real marriage, perhaps out of resentment; more likely because of leftist political philosophy
2) to avoid recognizing their own illness.
3) to gain social and political power (see 1)
if marriage was an enumerated power, then it would be at the state level. But, I don't see where, simply because it's not enumerated in the Constitution, it should instantly come within the purview of the States.
The problem with granting the power to the States:
"Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
There you go. There's the enumeration you were looking for.
And when the "pet" is a Chimpanzee or other ape who *can* give consent? Or will we deny the right to marriage to human mutes because they too speak in sign language?
A marriage is not simply a prenuptial agreement.
a marriage is the mating of a human male and a human female, not simply a contract.
We wouldn't have this problem if it weren't for the tolerance patrol. We're not supposed to point out that homosexuals have mental/emotional problems; instead we're supposed to ignore the evolutionary reality of mammalian species.
Pica:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
": an abnormal desire to eat substances (as chalk or ashes) not normally eaten "
We're allowed to define a desire to mis-use our digestive systems as "abnormal", but a desire to mis-use our reproductive organs, we're expected to think that normal and healthy.
I refuse to call a tail a leg and try to walk on it.
I do not think that the government should be involved in the 'marriage business' at all. If individuals want to marry in front of their god, then that is their choice. There should not be a government subsidy for marriage - ie IRS benefits.
We now consider it proper for a man and woman of different classes or races to marry, but whether or not people of different number, ages, species or genders can marry is under discussion. These pairings are neither more nor less logical than a Regency 'mesalliance' marriage. May I remind you that animalism, pedophilia, and group marriages are all part of the historical and religious traditions in Western Europe.
Personally, I am rather baffled that someone would ever want to be 'married'. If I am with someone, it is because I want to be...the idea of desiring to hand some element of control over that relationship to an outside party leaves me puzzled. But most people seem to want this, so I acknowledge that it is yet another place where I am >3SD from the human norm.
Jan
Load more comments...