 n2sooners says: What happens when you start trying to redefine marriage? In New Hampshire, it's possible for a 14-year-old boy to marry a 13-year-old girl - those are the minimum legally codified marriagable ages in the United States. Those minima also allow an adult woman to marry a 14-year-old boy or an old fart to marry a 13-year-old girl. Granted, the minors involved need both parental and court permission, but it's still the lowest marriagable age defined by law by any state (West Virginia also allows marriage under the age of 16 with parental and judicial consent, but there is no legally defined minimum; theoretically, it would be possible to marry an infant in WV). Why isn't anyone complaining about the legality of child marriage? Oh bull N2! First of all, look to the Old Testament for examples of polygamy! Abraham, Isaac, and David each had a number of wives. Solomon was said to have had 700 wives at the same time, plus 300 concubines although I don't know why anyone would want to do that, first of all, it sounds exhausting, not to mention financially draining. The world and the planet and the solar system and the whole damned universe won't explode if we allow same-sex marriage. Bull to what? Never since the founding of the nation has marriage meant anything but one man and one woman. So the effort now is to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. There are other ways to get the same rights, but those driving this cause don't seem to be as interested in equal rights as they are in redefining marriage. The whole hypocrisy involved here is that gays want to redefine marriage to include them, but not so it includes other consenting adults (those who, for some insane reason, want more than one spouse). And then they have the gall to claim that the new law grants equal access to marriage for all when it does no such thing. As for me, I'm not so sure the government sho... Well N2, I've stated before that I feel the essence of marriage is that two people support each other, but it is also a legal agreement. To me, this is a separate is not equal issue. There are zero constitutional grounds for the state to deny the privilege and benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians. Regardless of one's sexual orientation, they have the same rights as all other Americans and cannot be treated as second-class citizens. That being said, nobody can, or should try to force churches to follow what the state must do. Based on their beliefs, and their reading of Scripture, some churches will recognize and perform same-sex marriages, and some won't. Knowing that, people can choose whichever church they want to attend. So what is most important here? Getting the rights and privileges that go along with marriage, or getting the word marriage legally redefined? And how can anyone claim they support equal access to marriage for all when they are touting a law that specifically excludes certain consenting adults from getting married? It is IMO an unfair argument and one that I feel only fuels prejudice against gays. The first part wasn't an argument, it was a question. Because if rights are the most important thing, then I could see them being done much easier and with much less controversy. It could even be a boon to more than just homosexuals. Something other than marriage (which has traditionally been a religious function) could be created with the same rights. It could be used by homosexuals. It could be used by heterosexuals who don't want to be referred to as married (maybe for religious or other reasons). It could be used by those who aren't sexual at all but have a long term platonic relationship and wish to have next of kin rights. On the other hand, if it has to do with the word marriage, I d... I hear you and thank you for presenting your debate in such a polite manner; I appreciate that, and I think in many ways that you may have some points. I think we have to define marriage for starters. It hasn't always been between one man and one woman and polygamy was widely practiced in biblical times as I pointed out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of polygamy. It's illegal. I don't know why anyone would want to have more than one wife or one husband (although I could appreciate watching one man run my sweeper while another mowed the lawn--but heck just hire some handymen; it's much less complicated) It's uncomfortable to me to see gay marriage lumped together with bestialit... |
View the Top Clips from June 6, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
