Quote:
I think that these "high profile" debates are being thrown out in desperation as a distraction from other things

Quote:
I thought people were grantd marriage licenses by the state, not by the federal government. So shouldn't that be a per-state issue?

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd?

Quote:
But I think that some states have had their laws ignored by some courts.

Quote:
Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery

Quote:
I had the impression that judges were supposed to "not like laws" if those laws contravene constitutional rights, constitutional guarantees of equality, and that this part of a judge's job was a cherished "check and balance" in case of the legislature overstepping its constitutional mark.

Quote:
UK judges have only recently acquired similar powers -- overturning laws not because they're "unconstitutional" as such, as there is no constitution, but overturning them because they contradict the Human Rights Act and/or European human rights treaties.

Quote:
This has caused a certain amount of political fracas, and interestingly it's again mainly the Right who are objecting to this judicial oversight.

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history...

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd? I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.

Quote:

Quote:
I thought people were grantd marriage licenses by the state, not by the federal government. So shouldn't that be a per-state issue?

I agree. But I think that some states have had their laws ignored by some courts. Also, the issue of someone marrying in California and then moving to Iowa confuses the issue. Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.

Quote:
You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).

Quote:
It has often, at least in the last 30 years or so, apparently been a part of the Republican agenda to make up terms to apply to liberals and turn them into dirty words.

Do you really think this is limited to Republicans? Because I've been subjected to many "dirty word" terms against my own points of view. I think sometimes we use such words as shorthand to (what we think) is a well established point of view, and then it morphs into an insult (or rally word) over time.

But this isn't just Republicans. It seems to happen in just about any discourse over which there is some contention. It is human nature for arguments to devolve into "You're just a stupidhead"

Quote:
I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.

Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up..

Quote:
Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.

Quote:
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't.

Quote:
In addition, the Republicans seem to have a stranglehold on using these terms in non-outrageous manners.

Quote:
With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?

Quote:

If you think that same sex marriage is okay then let's debate on that. But be honest about it. Say, "I know this is a radical move, but I think it is ethical and I support it." I respect that and would love to talk about it. Maybe you'll open my mind. But don't point the finger at conservatives or Christians or whatever other group you're mad at for disagreeing with you and call them radicals.

Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word

Quote:
You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.

Well I don't listen to Rush, I used to live in Texas, and I can't recall the last conservative compaign ad I've seen, so probably I'm just uninformed. Dense might run a close second though.

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd? I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.

Quote:
If you think that same sex marriage is okay then let's debate on that. But be honest about it. Say, "I know this is a radical move, but I think it is ethical and I support it." I respect that and would love to talk about it. Maybe you'll open my mind.

Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up. You either don't pay attention to the news or aren't being honest. It was gay activists groups that pushed this through the courts. State after state has voted to make same sex marriage illegal yet judges who don't like laws along with activists who are forcing the issue on the courts are the ones that are making this an issue. Again, even if you disagree with me on whether it should be legal or not, you have to recognize that it was not conservatives that are making this an issue.

Quote:

Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word

You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.

I got the feeling that Jeff meant that, even though he's a conservative, he personally didn't view it as a dirty word, not that he's never seen it used as some sort of epithet by other conservatives. But then, Jeff seems to be one of the more even-keeled conservatives.

Quote:
I got the feeling that Jeff meant that, even though he's a conservative, he personally didn't view it as a dirty word, not that he's never seen it used as some sort of epithet by other conservatives.

Yes, this is what I meant.

Quote:
It didn't exist except for on Ozzy and Harriet.

Quote:

Quote:
Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery

Yeah, and, you know, it wasn't the Right that made that into an issue, it was the slave activists...

Peter

Quote:

Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history...

You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).

Quote:

Quote:
I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.

Defending it from what, exactly? So-called "activist judges?" The "attack" that is being "defended" against here simply does not exist. I cannot possibly speak any more eloquently on this than this document from the Center for American Progress has, so I will simply quote them here as evidence there is no "attack" on the institution of marriage:


Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato nstitute report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.


For those unaware, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian (and often Conservative) think tank. The fact is, true conservatives believe in States' rights, and the goal of this amendment is to take away the right of individual states to confer marriage upon certain couples.

Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?

Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up..

Bill Frist sets the legislative calendar for the Senate. He has chosen now to bring this issue up (along with flag burning, another golden oldie from the GOP Wedge Issue Greatest Hits collection.) With all of the other problems that need to be solved in the halls of Congress, why does he choose now?

You've acknowledged that the timing is a little too convenient, and I appreciate your candor. I will, in turn, acknowledge that gay rights groups are exerting a fair amount of legal pressure on the various state laws which restrict marriage. But, for you to claim that it's the left that's "bringing this topic up" means that the left somehow has the power to do so, and the only person with that power is Bill Frist. Bringing it up now, with all of the other things that need attention, implies that there is a grave, iminent threat. With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?

Quote:
Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.

From The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by noted social conservative Bill Clinton:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

In other words, under existing law, states have no obligation to recognize another state's marriage if it goes against their definition of marriage.

Quote:
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't.

Would you put yourself in this "most conservatives" category? If so, you are in opposition to this amendment, which prevents states from deciding for themselves.

Tony, thanks for you post. While it's clear we disagree on the issue, I appreciate you being clear in your arguements. I'm not seeking to change anyone's mind here, but gaining clarity in where we disagree is an accomplishment (ie, you didn't make any bogus arguments that Republicans are only concerned about the rights of right while males).

You are talking about this issue as if it was just broughten up last week when I argue that it was brought up several years ago. Marriage, as defined today IS under attack. Whether that's a concern to you or not is your opinion, but the fact remains that gay activists (supported by the Left) are using the courts to impose their view of society on the whole country. This is being done through the courts. While we seem to agree that this should be left upto the states, what is a state to do if it's amendment to a state constitution is tossed out by its supreme court?

I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so. At this point, I'm not "for" the US amendment because of that but if states are not allowed to pursue this locally, then I don't see an alternative.

I had the honesty to admit that this looks a bit too well timed for the 06 races, but I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing? Leaks to the press days prior to a vote on the Patriot Act? Reprinting of a 6 month old story days prior to a new CIA chief being voted in? (Yes, I'm basically granting the NYT and WP official positions within the DNC! ) Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Provide examples. The quote from me says nothing about the church and even if it did, that doesn't change the fact about what marriage has been.

Quote:
I'm Catholic and I support the idea of equality, which includes same-sex unions and/or marriage.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

Quote:

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, and this is just me, every complaint regarding same-sex marriage has the church somewhere at its root.

I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

Quote:
I've heard one that isn't: marriage for the purposes of procreation to ensure the continued existance of the state. (Though, there is a religious parallel to this argument, which is that God commanded us to go forth and multiply.)

However, that's a rubbish argument

Quote:
Not least because it assumes that the availability of marriage is a big enough incentive to make someone switch teams.

Quote:
Honestly, though, I'm not really sure what the real point of the state recognizing marriage actually is . . . .

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

I certainly don't mind discussing gay marriage, but this thread was started complaining about the political motives of the gay marriage amendment. To that, I brought up two points and added a third:

1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. Many of you bring up good reasons on why it should be changed (and to be honest, I'm not 100% against it but it comes across that way because I'm one of only two people taking this side now), but you have to admit that it's not the conservatives initiating the change. To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.) To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about. I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me. I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue. Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about? To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats. It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans. I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Damn I wish I had more than 20 minutes a day online.. while we seem to disagree, you guys are much more fun to debate that some of the other sites I visit (even the ones where I'm in the majority).

Quote:
I argue that it was brought up several years ago.

Quote:
I wonder how many of you will admit that Democrats would do the same thing?

Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

Quote:
Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history.

Quote:
I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so

Quote:

Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word

You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

Hence the reason I also added the phrase let alone society as a whole. And personally, none of those things you've mentioned above, I see as being particularly bad for society as a whole, either. I find some of them revolting (incest/beastiality), but others (legalized prostitution and drug use, in particular) I think would actually go so far as to improve society (even though I have no interest in partaking of either activity). It's not the Judeo-Christian values I object to -- it's that people think religious values should be used to guide society even to the point of persecuting minority segments of the population. Isn't that partly why this country was founded in the first place? To escape religious persecution?

That said, can you provide any valid demonstration of how gay marriage harms society?

Quote:
1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. [...] To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.)

I'm quite well aware that marriage existed before Christ. I'm also quite well aware that the concepts of marriage have changed and evolved over time, too -- both before, and after Christ. Polygamy was, at one point, acceptable (and still is, in some cultures). The bride, at one point, was considered nothing more than property, for which a bride-price was paid. According to the Bible, a man is required to marry his brother's wife, should his brother die -- we don't do that, anymore, either. Nor do we practice arranged marriages, though some cultures still do. Inter-racial marriages were also unacceptable at one point, too. There may or may not have been gay marriages at some point in history (I don't know of any instances of such, but, unlike you, I'm not willing to categorically deny such possibilities -- I'm not a scholar of the topic), but it doesn't matter: the crux of the argument is that you're defense is "tradition says...", but tradition is a) constantly changing, and b) culturally dependant.

Quote:
To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

Not really. I don't think it's radical to have behave based on ignorance. What I consider radical is, having been educated about the ignorance -- realizing the hypocrisy, oppression and bigotry involved in the subject -- to continue in that behaviour, and to defend that continued behaviour based on flimsy arguments drawn almost purely from religion. It's not radical to want to be treated as any other human being.

Quote:
2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

I agree that the Republicans may not have started the ball rolling, and I didn't claim that Republicans did so. The word I used was conservatives, with a lower-case 'c'. Further, it's not that they suddenly stopped giving out marriage licenses -- it's that they refused to give them out in the first place. The only two courses of action available after that, as a gay couple, is to either a) go along with the crowd, and accept your sub-citizen status, or b) seek redress through the legal system.

Quote:
3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about.

Oh, yes... the tired old "well the other guys are doing it" argument.

Quote:
I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me.

I agree -- strong family values are very important. However, there is a very large sector of the US that needs to wake up to the fact that a strong family isn't due to its constituent members -- it's made through love, caring, generosity, sacrifice, communication, and a whole host of other things. Conservatives are willing to deny the potential for a strong family based on nothing more than the presence of a penis and a vagina.

Quote:
I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue.

Not global warming, so much as a comprehensive, and sustainable energy policy -- I think the solutions for global warming will fall out of that. However, yes... I think the question of "how can we continue to advance our society when continuing to advance in our current direction is detrimental to our society's existance" is a hell of a lot more important than whether or not two "roommates" can get that little piece of paper that says they are, in fact, married.

Quote:
Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about?

Yes, but I also expect them to prioritize those issues with the society, as a whole, in mind -- not on getting re-elected.

Quote:
To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats.

Agreed -- the DNC was being run by idiots.

Quote:
It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think there were far more nefarious things happening in Ohio than simple DNC idiocy, that lost it to Republicans. (Note that the provided link is not to some random leftwing conspiracy-theorizing blog, but to Rolling Stone magazine. Put your political biases behind you while reading it, and look at it from a purely numbers perspective.)

Quote:
I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Of course... you and Jeff both give me hope that rational (or even semi-rational) discourse isn't as futile as I sometimes feel it is.

Quote:
Either that or we just ban marriage outright. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. The curches and the like can do as they please, but on a civil level nada.

Quote:
William J. Bennett on the Jon Stewart show.

Quote:
Who is attacking your marriage? If two women in Nebraska want to call themselves married, how in the hell does that have any impact, any bearing whatsoever on the personal relationship between you and your wife?

Quote:
Yep, just as soon as people are allowed to have same-sex marriages, the institution of heterosexual marriage will collapse. Probably just a matter of weeks, a year or two at most.

Quote:
Probably the best Stewart moment since he annihilated Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossifre.

Quote:
I support your right to be a bigot.

Quote:
Just don't allow the federal governments or state governments to impose bigotry on anyone else.

Quote:
Do you have any type of work trailer or pickup truck we can carry a large load of rocks in? I think it's time for a few stonings. After all, that's the way certain problems have always been solved. And it IS the Judeo-Christian way.

Quote:
I'm sure "marriage" has been defined as many different things in many different cultures during many different times. That doesn't make my definition of it worthless.

Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing. I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?

Quote:
The only effect on "traditional" families would be that their children might be somewhat more likely to assume a homosexual lifestyle due to the lower societal stigmatization of such. That particular change has been well underway for decades and is unlikely to ever go back, regardless of any laws passed.

Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!

Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?

Quote:

Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?

Yup. Those Japanese are down with the Christianity. The Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Turks, too.

Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.

Quote:
I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?

Quote:
How does a civil union in any way redefine or destroy the concept of religious marriage?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.

And yet, you want to stop them from getting married? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Quote:
There are some (few, maybe) who are fine with civil unions, but oppose the state recognizing gay marriages.

Quote:
A religious marriage? Surely it's not the state's business to decide whether a marriage is contrary to any religious law is it? If a Christian church (or other religious org) decides to marry gay men or women then surely that's an issue for that church and it's leadership and followers isn't it?

Quote:
Agree with you Jeff. The sooner that happens the better (in the UK too)

Quote:
I have a friend who has lived with her partner for 15 years or so. She refuses to take part in anything called a marriage, because of the baggage she says is attached to the word. Because of this her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.

Quote:
In effect that is what we already do have in the UK. If you want a church marriage you can go to a church. If you are a hetrosexual couple you can get a civil marriage (which has no religious content).

Quote:
her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.

Quote:
the muslim one has no legal recognition

Quote:
After a quick bit of Googling it appears that it applies to all religious marriages that aren't in a Church of England (or Church of Wales) church.

Quote:
Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs.

Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.

Quote:
The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong

Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,

Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.

Quote:
And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.

Of course... otherwise, you would have given in, already.

Quote:

Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!

You really need to decide if you're a student at UTwente in the Netherlands or a gun-toting redneck from Louisiana. For example.

Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?

Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?

Quote:
It includes multiple husbands as well.

Quote:
Because, while I personally find these marriages distasteful and bad for society, I think those decisions are best made in state capitals and not Capitol Hill.

Quote:

Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

How does that differ from your beliefs?

Quote:

Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

How does that differ from your beliefs?

Quote:
What research have you done to determine their negative effect on society?

Quote:
ALL Islam allows polygamy under a strict set of circumstances that include:

Agreement of existing partner(s)
Guaranteed equality of treatment of wives
Ability to support additional cost burden

Quote:

My parents families who are largely small scale farmers in rural Pakistan do not practise polygamy, within their communities it's an extremely rare (and declining) occurrence, I believe this to be the case in Islamic societies worldwide (even in ultra conservative countries like Saudi).

Quote:

As regards misogyny there's plenty of that and other ills in the Islamic world, to a greater extent than the rest of the developing world?

Quote:

I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.

Quote:
Whether multi partner relationships should be afforded the same rights as single partner ones is a huge question but to my mind it's difficult to see why the state should be involved in a group of individuals family structure. [...] I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.

Quote:
That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.

Quote:
You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west.

Quote:
My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.

Quote:
misogyny

Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

                         Live outside Texas         Live in Texas
Support 80mph+                   A                       B
Oppose 80mph+                    C                       D

Quote:
So, do speed limits belong at the federal or state level?

Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

Quote:
...it violates the spirit of freedom of belief.

Quote:
The words "belief" and "believe" aren't in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or any of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights.

Quote:
So what do you mean by it?

Quote:
What I mean by it is simply that we all have the right to think whatever we want and that it is not the governments job to correct our mis-beliefs.

Quote:
Ahh. So government-funded education is bad? I know Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) would agree with that, but...

That's a different issue altogether. Public education teaches us how to learn and to apply our minds, leading to a more educated (and better) society. It's not so much about correcting mis-beliefs as providing people the tools they need to be productive citizens.

Are we really going to argue about whether US citizens are afforded the right do define and act on their own beliefs? It seems to me that one of the biggest complaints I hear from liberals* is that conservative policies are telling the rest of the country what to believe. I don't think it's always the case when the accusation is made (though sometimes it is), but I never question the underlying assumption that it is not right for the government to impose beliefs upon people.

The spirit of the constitution is that US citizens should be free to be persue their own happiness as long as they do not abridge this right in others. How can personal belief not be fundamental to this persuit?


*"Liberal" meaning those with more progressive politics, not as a bad word

Quote:
So what about the people who believe the Earth is flat?

Quote:
Should we crash every satellite out there and shutdown NASA because orbital mechanics support the belief that the Earth is spherish?

Quote:
Beliefs can't enter into the conversation. Not if it's going to be civilized debate. Not if it's about laws in America. When any side makes it about belief, everyone is suddenly forced into a corner with no where to go. Once they do, it almost always ends in repression or violence.

Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?

Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?

Quote:
To be honest, I probably can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. I have a "hunch" that these kinds of relationships wouldn't really be beneficial for society, but I can't explain why, as I'm not an expert on psychology or sociology or whatever field of study would deal with this kind of thing.

I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?

Quote:
It seems to me that getting two parents to agree on how to raise a child is hard enough, so adding more would confound things even worse, but of course I can't prove that notion.

Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Quote:
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.

Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Quote:

I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?

Quote:
Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Quote:
Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Quote:

snip snip snip

Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Quote:
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.

Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Ditto from this strongly non-atheist Dave and his own S.O.

Quote:
How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?

Quote:
Ditto from this strongly non-atheist Dave and his own S.O.

Quote:
Murder is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Stealing is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Almost everything against the law is there because we as a society BELIEVE it to be wrong.

How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?

Quote:
it will only show them how much we as a society dislike them.

Quote:
Or maybe "treat them as something less than our equals"?

Quote:
However, in no way does two men getting married take anything from you.