Nanohedron wrote:It is? Okay, then. How to differentiate, then, especially since your own stance has been decidedly Christian in this issue?
This is how: I am right, Harold Kushner is wrong.
I didn't mean to debate what constitutes "the Bible," just to be a devil's advocate, as it were.
You fox-in-the-chicken-coop, you. That's why I use "Torah" and "Bible" as separate concepts. I have heard some rabbis use the term "Bible", and have always wondered exactly what they meant.
cran - am I having trouble typing and being clear, or are you not reading what I've written?
I never said a thing about polygomy or incest!
And, yes, I realize that the government is probably NOT going to get out of defining a marriage, since it has done so for a while.
Let me try this one more time.......
I have NOTHING against two people marrying - no matter what their sex is. I have friends (multiple couples at that) that are in committed, life time lesbian relationships.
I just don't think the government should have a say so in what a MARRIAGE is. To my thinking, the word MARRIAGE is based on a religious connotation. If a church wants to perform a MARRIAGE (and I'm capitalizing this so you understand what I'm saying - not that I'm "yelling" or something) that is fine.
But the state should only be defining what a CIVIL UNION is. This state - Ohio - currently has no definition on the books for CIVIL UNION. Or COMMON LAW or anything else. Only for MARRIAGE. And I think that is wrong.
I think that two people, no matter who or what, that want to take legal responsibility for each other should be allowed to do that by law, and that is what a CIVIL UNION is.
And that can be ANY two people, including mother and daughter - I'm not talking about incest here - I'm not referring to sexual relationships of any kind! I'm talking about two people that have legal responsibilities and privilages over each other. Can own property jointly (and when one dies it doesn't have to go through court or probate). Can have SS of the other or whatever. Health benefits.
I also think all tax deductions should be done away with - so I won't even go into all that!
So - I agree with whomever it was that said there should be two ceremonies - one a CIVIL ceremony that is conducted by the state, and then a MARRIAGE that is conducted by a religious or otherwise set up institution if so desired.
OK - so it's probably NOT going to happen. So - I have no problem with gays or whatever "marrying" - and while I would love to NOT have to have a law for it, I guess I can understand the need for said law. I think it's overstepping the Constitution, and I really think it's overstepping by going after a federal law, but I can understand why one would want one.
But - I also think there are TONS of laws that have overstepped the bounds, and I really hate to see more laws instituted and continue that trend.
missy wrote:cran - am I having trouble typing and being clear, or are you not reading what I've written?
I never said a thing about polygomy or incest!
missy in the earlier reply wrote:I think the government should only declare civil unions, and I don't care if a man and woman, two men, two women, a mother and daughter or two friends want a civil union, they should be able to have it.
Why is polygamy separate? If consenting adults (I'm NOT talking about the polygamous groups who marry off their children to older relatives) want to marry, why not? How is that different from gay marriage?
missy wrote:cran - am I having trouble typing and being clear, or are you not reading what I've written?
I never said a thing about polygomy or incest!
missy in the earlier reply wrote:I think the government should only declare civil unions, and I don't care if a man and woman, two men, two women, a mother and daughter or two friends want a civil union, they should be able to have it.
(emphasis mine)
Cran, she clarified that:
missy wrote:And that can be ANY two people, including mother and daughter - I'm not talking about incest here - I'm not referring to sexual relationships of any kind! I'm talking about two people that have legal responsibilities and privilages over each other.
Giles: "We few, we happy few."
Spike: "We band of buggered."
susnfx wrote:Why is polygamy separate? If consenting adults (I'm NOT talking about the polygamous groups who marry off their children to older relatives) want to marry, why not? How is that different from gay marriage?
susnfx wrote:Why is polygamy separate? If consenting adults (I'm NOT talking about the polygamous groups who marry off their children to older relatives) want to marry, why not? How is that different from gay marriage?
Susan
I'm not entirely sure.
Polygamy was sometimes practiced among the Children of Israel, was it not?
