Which of the following would be acceptable?

[MewtwoX]

Here's one compelling argument that a minority should be discriminated against. I don't think adult men should be allowed to have sexual relations with young children.

Now should we discriminate against men who want to do that, or do you feel we should allow this?

Personally, even if you feel it is ok, I feel that I have succesfully shown a reason that groups of any size minority or not can be discriminated against.

Ahh, but there's more to discrimination than just separating two groups in rights. Discrimination is such an action on grounds that are legally irrelevant.

Allowing marriages of Pedophiles can be destructive to the children they marry. Criminals are restricted because of the crimes they have committed.

Sexual Orientation on the other hand is legally arbitrary.

 

[HisEagle]

Skipping all responses so as not to influence my opinion on this matter.


Okay, since you only want responses as they pertain to legal issues, I said #2 - "Everyone has a civil union; marriage is no longer a legal term, just a religious one."

In my opinion, a marriage is a spiritual, mystical bond that is brought about by God alone. It is the joining together of two souls so that they become one. Yes, to me it is a religious term.

However, there is absolutely no reason in the world why 2 men or 2 women shouldn't have the legal right to decide who has control over their property or other personal matters in the event one or the other is incapacitated. If a man wants to say that another man has the right to inherit his property, or be granted power of attorney over his affairs, that's his business - even if it means his blood relatives are excluded from any inheritance.

If you want to be married in the eyes of God, then go to a church and seek that. At the same time, it should be respected that a clergyman has the right to refuse to perform such a ceremony, regardless of whether it's a man/man, woman/woman, or man/woman.

 

[ChristianCarterHutchinson]

i personally believe that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals BUT they should not by any means beable to get married. if you look at Matthew 19:4-6 you will see the definition of marriage there are many other verses that give the definition some better than others. though homosexuals should not beable to be married they should beable to have a cival union that gives them the same rights as far as things like hospital visitations, land titles, loans etc...

 

[mark53]

I choose # 1 & 2!
Firstly marriage, in a Church is only a few centuries old as it enabled the Church (especially in the UK) to keep records of someone's life from birth, baptism, marriage and finally death. We can all now use this in tracing our ancestors.
Secondly, in ancient times = biblical times marriage equalled the first time the man had sex with a woman - he took her as his wife.
Thirdly, there are arguments given for all possible sides within the Church and who is to say that laws should be made to please one part of the Church against another and to those not of the Church at all.

 

[chalice_thunder]

If the U.S. passed a Federal Amendment defining marriage as a civil union consisting of 2 or more people in legal contract to one another, what action (if any) would many churches take when these couples wanted to place membership with them?

The actions of the churches would be up to them.

Many would simply say, "we don't marry gay people."

Some would say,"welcome, join us, and let us honor your union with God's blessing."

The choice is theirs - the law would have nothing to say to the churches.

 

[knightlight72]

Ahh, but there's more to discrimination than just separating two groups in rights. Discrimination is such an action on grounds that are legally irrelevant.

Allowing marriages of Pedophiles can be destructive to the children they marry. Criminals are restricted because of the crimes they have committed.

Sexual Orientation on the other hand is legally arbitrary.

I understand what you're trying to say, but outlaw had put forth that he has never seen any use of discrimination that was logical. I pointed out a use of discrimination that was. I know we all discriminate, (not meant to be in a bad way) Think of the different uses of the term.

Please note that the groups I mentioned do have different rights. and by law they are recognized. Legally, we can and do discriminate, and people do want that as a whole.

And that is the point, we can and do discriminate legally many practices.

 

[jayem]

And that is the point, we can and do discriminate legally many practices.

Of course, our laws make distinctions among persons and actions all the time, and that is the necessary thing to do. But the distinctions should have a rational basis, and benefit all of society. And determining that is an evolutionary process of societal consensus. In years past it was felt that laws enforcing racial segregation were felt to be necessary for good social order. As time has progressed, it's now recognized (among most people, anyway) that such laws were irrational and unfair. They were based on little more than a cultural taboo. I think laws allowing legal discrimination because of homosexuality is exactly the same. There is no rational foundation for them other than long-standing cultural aversion. I have no doubt it will eventually change. Just a matter of time and social evolution.

 

[Kgreg]

As a repentant homosexual, who has been in heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, I know that homosexual relationships are not the equal of heterosexual ones, and, therefore, do not qualify for the status of marriage.

 

[Spinrad]

This discussion is pointless. People will demand the right to be lawful bigots, and there is simply no will to stop them on this particular issue in most communities. It's a sickening, vile and wretched thing, but frankly I don't think this one is winnable any more. At least not this generation. Humans aren't grown up enough yet.

 

[fillerbunny]

Here's one compelling argument that a minority should be discriminated against. I don't think adult men should be allowed to have sexual relations with young children.

Now should we discriminate against men who want to do that, or do you feel we should allow this?

It's not discrimination when you prohibit individuals from engaging in criminal activities (i.e. child abuse). It's upholding the law.

 

[suzybeezy]

Closing thread for staff review

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

After careful review, it has been determined this thread will remain closed. In order for this discussion to occur in this forum, citations were required. There are entirely too many posts lacking the citations necessary. Therefore, the thread will remain closed.

4.2 You will restrict any posts about the following controversial topics to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums, or any subforums in the Congregation/Recovery section:
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.
This site uses the scriptural definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. In addition, the debate of the morality of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred. The above topics are also disallowed in profile entries including avatars and signatures as these are not intended to be used in such a manner.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is being reopened, since the rules have been updated, it no longer requires citation for the discussion on this topic. This thread can stay open as long as the discussion remains civil.

Revised rule reads: 3.9 Controversial Topics to Be Discussed Only in Certain Forums. Members shall make posts regarding the following subjects only in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums, or any subforums in the Congregation/Recovery section:
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Archivist]

Here's one compelling argument that a minority should be discriminated against. I don't think adult men should be allowed to have sexual relations with young children.

Now should we discriminate against men who want to do that, or do you feel we should allow this?

Personally, even if you feel it is ok, I feel that I have succesfully shown a reason that groups of any size minority or not can be discriminated against.

I'm happy to see this thread back, as I had wanted to respond to this.

It is not discrimination to prohibit marriage between an adult and a child as a child cannot enter into a binding contract. Just for the record, neither can a dog, cat goldfish, SUV or any other animal, plant or inanimate object.

 

[SimplyMe]

I understand what you're trying to say, but outlaw had put forth that he has never seen any use of discrimination that was logical. I pointed out a use of discrimination that was. I know we all discriminate, (not meant to be in a bad way) Think of the different uses of the term.

Please note that the groups I mentioned do have different rights. and by law they are recognized. Legally, we can and do discriminate, and people do want that as a whole.

And that is the point, we can and do discriminate legally many practices.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to recognize that there are two different definitions for discriminate:

1. 1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
   2. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

Outlaw was using the second definition for his post, as even you imply. Yes, discrimination can be a good thing but, in the sense of law, it typically uses the second definition. Just because there are two definitions of the term does not mean discriminating is always a good thing, or that it ever is when using the second definition.

 

[SimplyMe]

As a repentant homosexual, who has been in heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships, I know that homosexual relationships are not the equal of heterosexual ones, and, therefore, do not qualify for the status of marriage.

Your anecdotal evidence is not proof. Also, here are several testimonies that claim something different from yours.