Traditional Marriage

Any questions?
View attachment 1916

 

Yeah! You off the couch yet?

 

The Bible has allowed all kinds marriage for a long time. But, YOU are against siblings who want to marry. Or Child/Parent marriages. YOU are the one who is against true marriage equality.

 

Cracker logic? Oh yeah!

 

You're racist and you're against marriage equality. You're such a complete loser.

 

It's your party pushing "traditional marriage". My party is trying to make it available to more people. Your crazy ass twisted rants are purely self-serving nonsense but you know that. Just like when you spew that we are ALL Africans because humans came from Africa millions of years ago. What dumb cracker you are.

 

Not sure the path this op was supposed to head. All I can say is marriage isn't a religious ceremony as it predates any known religion by at least a few thousand years if not longer. People can argue its a legal process but it predates law as well.

 

So if my dad married my sister and was, well, you know, It wouldn't be incest?

Hell, I could be an uncle and a brother all at the same time! With the same person too!

Methinks you're reaching here Coin.

 

If we are going to have true marriage equality in this country, shouldn't we allow equality for ANYONE who wishes to marry? Take your own, personal feelings out of the equation and don't consider the "yuck" factor of the thought of your father marrying your sister. Marriage equality advocates couldn't care less whether you think it's "yucky" that two men or two women marry. They want their legal right and they deserve it. But, that same right should be extended to everyone or it's not really a right, is it?

The case that was brought before the Supreme Court didn't deal with the "love" or "sex" aspect of marriage. It dealt only with the "legal" aspect. Therefore, if your father and sister wanted to marry for legal reasons (wills, trusts, probate, funeral planning, hospital visitation, insurance, etc.) shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

After all, if two non-biologically-related women or two non-biologically-related men may marry for legal reasons, shouldn't others be allowed the exact same right? How can we possibly deny anyone that right?

 

What we should be looking at is what constitutes a legal family for insurance and tax purposes. If my best friend, with no family ties to speak of, becomes disabled and can not care for himself, and I take him in, care for him, is he not my dependent. Should I not be able to declare him as a dependent on my taxes, as a family member on my insurance. My aunt and uncle took me and my two sisters in when I was 6 years. It was not an adoption, due to my mother's mental health. They declared us as dependents on their taxes and were audited by the IRS every year (17 years straight) for their troubles. Also, when I broke my arm playing on a swing set on base housing, I was not allowed to use US Air Force medical hospital, not being a legal dependent. My parents has to drive me 60 miles to the closest civilian hospital.

 

So I'm curious. By the same logic, will we have "true" freedom of religion in this country only when everyone is allowed to practice any religion in any way he feels he needs to with no limits or restrictions imposed by the government?

 

Well at least you're not one of thsse Biblical Marriage freaks.

 

A brilliant response, worthy of a Davy.

I'm assuming you support Biblical Marriage then. All of them? All the versions in the OP are apparently ordained by the Sky Troll.

 

Freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the Constitution. What limits or regulations would you be for or against?

 

Oh, against would probably include animal sacrifice, refusing to get medical treatment for sick or injured children, refusing to pay taxes, marrying children to adults or to other children. There are all sorts of things that people do in the name of religion that society might have an interest in regulating or banning. But then this means less than total freedom of religion, doesn't it.

 

see above

 

If they're going to allow freedom for some (let's say those who would sacrifice animals) then they have to allow it for all. That's the point I'm making. Not that the government doesn't have an inherent obligation to safeguard children or animals, but if they're going to allow freedom for some, they must allow it for all. For instance, if the government is going to allow certain Native American tribes to use peyote during their rituals, shouldn't they allow it for others?

 

I don't know. What if in one group usage is restricted to adults and in another the faith dictates that the peyote be administered all all believers regardless of age? What if in one instance the peyote is used to achieve union with some greater spirit and in another instance it is seen as a medicine and used to treat appendicitis? To make a blanket statement that if peyote is used by one religious group then it must be allowed to all religious groups is kind of stupid. Don't you think?

 

Not at all, at least in philosophical terms. After all, if we are talking about freedom and liberty for one group of people, it wouldn't be fair to deny another group the same freedom and liberty.

 

So help me understand your.... ummm.... thinking here. Let's say we have two tribes who use peyote in religious ceremonies. In Tribe A the drug is given only to adults. In Tribe B, the drug is given to all members regardless of age. This is the only significant difference in the way the two tribes use peyote. As far as the law is concerned, if Tribe A is free to use peyote as its tradition dictates, should Tribe B be free to use peyote in accordance with its own tradition?