Hey dgs49, Obama just called your bluff

[MajGenl.Meade]

The "morality prescribed by God" in Islam allows a man to marry four wives; in historical and fundamentalist Mormonism, at least two wives. Polygyny and polyandry are featured in religious texts of Jews and Hindus, and are still practiced in some Middle Eastern and South Asian countries. Polygamy is still practiced in many African countries (including your own) as both a cultural and religious expression. Whose god has the monopoly on such morality?

The one and only God of course - who would be NOTA. That requires a different argument not appropriate to the subject of this thread.

Again, the issue for me is not what society decides to do. It is what I decide to do on the basis of the convictions that I hold (not the three months for GBH one, the other ones). What I decide is to oppose legislation and legislatures that promote homosexual marriage. That doesn't make me a homophobe any more than supporting homosexual marriage makes one a homophile.

What consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their homes is neither my business nor the government's, unless of course it is a direct contravention of laws against child abuse, murder, etc etc. I am content that rubato should remain the doyen of hatred, persecution and pork

In fact, stretching back to the most ancient times, marriage has always been a "secular state," as it has always been a contractual agreement between the parties. It is religion (as well as a great deal of sentimentality) that has been more recently grafted onto marriage arrangements as a "sacrament" in Christian cultures

That would be true if marriage relationships were not the creation of the Creator God before "secular states" existed. One man - one woman.

Marriage, when it comes with a variety of benefits from the government, has to be secular, otherwise people are being denied access to benefits solely because of their sexual orientation.

I can think of two solutions - there may be more. First that government could cease granting benefits to "married" people. Not a flyer, that one I expect. Second, government could instead grant all these wonderful benefits to those who enter into what Sue U and others are certain are only 'contractual commitments
'. This would require government to get out of the business of "marrying" people at all. Everyone (man, woman, man/woman, gekko) desiring to commit their life to a relationship with another person would need to make a contract (requiring a lawyer of course and this just might swing the vote) that the government would regard as the operative instrument to get goodies. They would not however be "married". That estate would be reserved for the religious sphere. This might be regarded as the 'semantic solution' - is anyone here anti-semantic?

Guin - I regret the abandonment of Biblical principles and God's truth by liberal churches who desire only to conform to this world. It is cowardly and immoral but that's their choice. Should they decide to ordain bishops who were engaged in homosexual activity but who renounce that as sin, they would be exemplifying Christ rather than the other chap (1 Cor 6:9-11).

I know of no secular moral basis on which to legislate that 16 years old is a 'correct' or 'proper' (choose your own word) for a human to consent to sexual activity? The answer is: none whatever other than an arbitrary societal consensus, subject to change. NAMBLA argues from the same perspective as do proponents of homosexual marriage - that of people to "choose" to live their life according to their "rights" which do not "harm" anyone.

Meade

[dgs49]

Do NOT equate race or gender or ethnicity with "homosexuality." No court has ever done so.

Citing anti-miscegenation laws with reference to the refusal of states to permit people of the same gender to marry is a liberal fantasy.

MEADE, you might want to consider the view that the word, "marriage" describes (mainly) two completely different institutions, one created by the Church (or God, if you like), and one created by the Sovereign. This is self-evident when you consider the creation and dissolution of the "marriage" relationship. If I were to get married by a JP, then, as a Catholic, I would still have to go to a priest and get married because I would not have been married in the eyes of the Church (or in my own eyes or the eyes of God). Similarly, if my wife would file for divorce in my state and get one over my objections, I would be divorced in the eyes of the State, yet still married in my eyes, the eyes of the Church, and the eyes of God. Consider also if we had gotten married by a priest (creating both institutions simultaneously), then gotten our marriage annulled in the Church. We would still be married in the eyes of the State.

So my point is that it should not matter to you, a religious person, WHAT the State decides to do w/r/t the definition of legal "marriage,' and whom it might apply to. It has no effect on you, or the Church. You are talking about two different institutions of marriage, one spiritual and personal, and one legal.

[Big RR]

And I'm certain in the 19th century many would have said "do not equate allowing a couple to marry without consent of the parents (or at least the woman's parents (as was on the books at that time in many jurisdictions) with allowing persons of different races to marry. No court has ever done so." And indeed they were right; for many decades the courts routinely upheld statutes barring those of different races to marry. Just as before women were considered to be the property of their fathers and under an obligation to respect their father's wishes with regard to who they married. But times and atitudes change, as they should.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But times and atitudes change, as they should.

Oh now Big RR, you know as well as I that merely because an attitude changes, that doesn't make it good or right.

Still waiting for someone to explain how their opposition to NAMBLA is morally different - or is it just a case of waiting for times and attitudes to change - "as they should"?????????

[Grim Reaper]

Citing anti-miscegenation laws with reference to the refusal of states to permit people of the same gender to marry is a liberal fantasy.

You said that states can discriminate. I proved you wrong. But instead of admitting you're wrong, you just dance around the issue with irrelevant nonsense.

Still waiting for someone to explain how their opposition to NAMBLA is morally different

Because NAMBLA doesn't involve two consenting adults. As I've already explained.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Simply an evasion of the question I think, which revolved around the 'moral' difference, not an arbitrary legal definition.

Justify that a person of 15 years of age cannot (ever) be a 'consenting adult' - on absolute moral grounds other than 'we don't think anyone under 16 is an adult'.

Or do you believe that if a sufficient consensus existed to lower the age of consent (or being an adult for that matter) to 14 it would suddenly become OK? Or may a majority or consensus declare that actually 21 is the age of consent?

This may be a digression of sorts and if so I apologise for it (although to me the moral argument goes to the heart of it)


Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--morality is the province of religion and philosophy, legality is the province of the law, and the two should not necessarily be one and the same. The law can and should protect those who cannot protect protect themselves, including children (as GR answered to your NAMBLA inquiry), but IMHO morality should not be legislated. I respect any religions right to refuse to sanction (or to choose to sanction for that matter) any marriage, but the law should not exist to promote any particular brand of morality.

Re the age of consent being lowered by a consensus, ask me when that arises. I fully supported lowering it from 21 to 18 (and still do).