lol,,no,, he didnt 'stop', he just switched up,,,,

Some people had a standard of morality that they used to determine right from wrong, and that standard included a concept of black people and slavery which made it okay, very Christian actually, to own slaves.

Just because something is 'a standard of morality' in someone's worldview doesn't make it okay.

Exactly.

marriage and slavery are broad terms that were defined culturally

the slavery that was not ok in America, was also not ok in the bible


the actions are whats right or wrong, their labels change with time,,,,

I could care less about this issue. Marriage has been already destroyed by the divorce rate. This is just a topic to distract us from the real issues.

Are any of these three worse compared to gay marriage? In numerous countries these are fine and dandy but the gay marriage is were they draw the line. Mail order Bride = Prostitution. So either legalize prostitution or make Mail Order Brides illegal.


Legalized Gay Marriage
Argentina
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden

the discussion is about the laws of AMerica, so other countries are not the immediate concern

as to mail order = prostitution

there is no way to prove that a mail order bride doesnt consentually enter into the marriage, thus no validity to making it illegal

and marriage involves much more than an exchange of money for an INSTANCE of sexual gratification,, so its much more complex

although I Do believe it hypocritical that casual sex is legal but prostitution is not,,,

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation."
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

hypocirsy has been the stmbling block

men in charge have been the stumbling block too, because they have a way of only using what benefits their power and not adhering to what requires their sacrifice and humility,,,

America will do what ever it wants. The majority of Europe will have gay marriage legal, prostitution legal and the death penalty illegal. We say we are free but really we always find a group to pick on or discriminate. The main issue is if we will allow gays to adopt kids.

'gays' already adopt kids and make kids with the opposite sex and have surrogate mothers carry 'their' kids

children come from SEX And there are no laws against consentual sex between adults regardless of gender,,,

europe is not free form discrimination, that is a human flaw existing across lines of nationality,,,

It doesn't seem that people are too willing to label their source of morality. Let's try asking them to set it aside - see my next post.

Florida, Mississippi, and Utah - have laws that explicitly prohibit homosexual individuals and/or couples from adopting children. Some states

Morality is a philosophical issue not a religious one. It is not the easiest topic to explain.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-g03.html



Above is a combination of quotes and paraphrase, the reference for that information and the list of Federal laws it refers to can be accessed via the url above the quotes.

Let us put away our individual moral codes for the moment and consider some of the 1,138 laws in the document provided in the url. I won’t hand feed, this is work each person must do for themselves.

Consider why the laws are beneficial and for whom they are beneficial, in the broadest sense (e.i., individuals, social groups, states, federal ). Do not fall into the trap of assigning gender to any of those categories, in other words, if the term wife and husband are used consider them gender neutral for this exercise. The reason has nothing to do with same-sex marriage but has everything to do with confusing gender discrimination with other discriminations being discussed in this thread.

When considered as a whole, these laws not only benefit individuals who choose to marry and remain married throughout a life together, but they also benefit social accord, state governments, and federal governments and for those who claim that children are the primary reason and function of marriage, there is no doubt that marriage benefits children both in the nuclear family and the extended families. Note that children benefit by the marriage of their parents because the law protects them (as a married couple) as they age and because the law protects the inheritance that may be passed on to the children.

Perhaps people think that children benefit the most, and that may be so, but the state and federal government have much to gain when any individual voluntarily agrees to be responsible, not only for another human being (a spouse) but when the two of them (together) take responsibility for any children they bring into their nuclear family, regardless of how those children came to be in the first place.

With all bias put aside, I don’t believe it is possible to imagine that marriage (as it is coded into our laws) holds any more or less relevance to opposite-sex couples than it does for same-sex couples. Nowhere in these laws are references that would indicate that the importance of marriage is solely related to the ability to produce children as a couple. There are however references in Judicial statutes (and within adoption law) that indicate children do not have to be born of both partners in a marriage for the child to be considered THEIR child for whom they both take responsibility.

Let’s see how good people are at setting aside their bias, or how deeply ingrained prejudice can be.

this is why Im all for CIVIL unions that extend legally the rights of the heterosexual MARRIED couples to other consenting adults who would benefit from those LEGAL RIGHTS


along with MARRIAGE , however, is the option of DIVORCE.. some grounds concerning adultery and consummation which both aknowledge and EXPECT A sexual relation

Im not for the government sanctioning the SEXUAL activity between same sex individuals, I am for consenting adults as citizens being able to determine that they want to make a union of their LIVES with another or other consenting adults in terms of assets and other legal protections,,,,

Very nice post.

correct

Many different groups try to influence government mandates and policies...Some groups want to keep things the same. And other groups push for changes...To be honest I try not to view myself as part of the "ruling class.".. I have my own views and opinions and beliefs but so does everyone else.. I think it's honorable that some gay people want to get married and be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples in society...Who am I to tell them that they don't have the right to get married? I am not part of some elite "ruling class" with authority over those at the so-called "bottom" of the hierarchy...I understand that some people are influenced by their religious beliefs. But why do some people have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation?..I don't condone the use of violence by anyone. (Or any side.)

'marriage' as is recognized by the government is defined by the government, who therefore, have the authority to decide who has the 'right'

at this point, they have decided everyone has the 'right' to marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not immediately related, or a minor,,,,




interesting article about the topic of 'rights'

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com/2006/05/i-want-my-rights.html

What if a civil union were to provide to adults in one with the same government benefits provided to adults in a marriage?

Would that be satisfactory?