Posted on 06/16/2008 9:08:47 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Does the California legislature have the power to thwart the will of the voters like ours did in Massachusetts?
Didn’t the California electorate already vote on this a few years ago? And didn’t the California Supreme Court just ignore it?
Well no. We can draw the line at informed consent. To enter into a contract both parties must be able to understand what they are agreeing to - animals as smart as many of them are just not capable of performing informed consent.
And increasing the number of people performing in a marriage contract can’t be changed because some things really can’t be split, for example, if we look some guy with three wives, winds up in the hospital in a coma - who makes the decision about his care? What if one of those wives disagree about the treatment?
Me, I’m an agnostic on Gay Marriage, it’s not going to make any difference in my life, and as a Conservative, I really don’t care what two people decide to do with their lives.
But you are defining the post gay marriage unions in terms of present day contract definitions.
These go out the window once you redefine what marriage is.
The limit of two in a contract will not be absolute in marriage, and “contracts” can be entered by any number of people now, but marriage is accepted and defined as one man and one woman. Nor will it legally be possible to not allow bestiality, because it is all about love, man, and besides, who are you to judge and to impose your morality?
We had a social compact regarding marriage that worked for 5,000 years that defined mutual responsibilities and benefits. Like breathing, what further change is needed to something so basic?
A change to that basic definition will open the floodgates to all kinds of intended and unintended consequences to society. And these consequences will invade your town and society eventually, whether you agree or not, and it will change your life and how you live.
If all we need are judges to determine how we should live, talk, and interact in the social contract, let’s get rid of all the politicians—they are unnecessary.
We’ve been redefining marriage from the day society first coined the term marriage.
Up until 70 years ago, marriage has been more about economic unions than love. There were no rights for married women, they were nothing more than property for 4,900 of those 5000 years.
50 years ago, one couldn’t legally marry a person of a different race, they were making the same arguments against interracial marriage that you are making today about gay marriage.
Once again, we have to see what are the true principles of a society, it will be legally possible to enforce a ban on bestiality because informed consent has been a cornerstone of western civilization for 1000 years. And an animal just can’t give informed consent.
Same thing with polygamy, contract law states you can’t promise the same thing to two different people. Polygamy violates this. This is more physical law than anything else.
But Gay marriage doesn’t violate any of these principles of western civilization. If you want to ban gay marriage, you will have to show how adam and steve getting married in San Francisco is going to cause you to leave your spouse and take up residence with an animal.
We have not redefined marriage—it has always been between one man and one woman.Acceptance of interracial marriage did not change the basic concept of one man one woman.
Legal contracts are made everyday where one person promises things to more than one person.
Women from the time of Moses in Jewish society, and later, in Western civilizations, had the right of inheritance of property.
You say that informed consent cannot be overturned due to 1,000 years of precedence. We are about to overturn 5,000 years of precedence. And since when, in a legal free for all that describes modern jurisprudence, would this even be a criteria once the gay lobby starts their wialing and gnashing of teeth over the “injustice” of it all.
All of us will have our society changed when the Pandora’s box is opened. We can disagree on that point, but events will overtake us whether we agree or not.
No. you are factually wrong, it used to be between one man and several women. Moses had a few concubines.
Those contracts are invalid, you can’t promise one car to two different people.
Look if you honestly cared about marriage, you’d be spending your time trying to rid America of “No-fault” divorce.
When you are on the same side of the Islamic terrorists, you really should rethink your position.
“I believe we should be able to marry anyone and anything -
Historical figures, strangers, trees, rocks, cities ...”
The marriages are counterfiet, I don’t care if a corrupt judicial branch legalized it, in the eyes of God it is not recognized. Unfortunately all the marriages will do is to cause behavior and anger problems in children as they will become further confused by a sick culture. But that’s okay, they can just put the kids on prozac! And then we can scream about gun control as more children continue to go postal at the local high school. Think of all the employement opportunities that will be created trying to “cure” the angry kids with behavior problems.
No, you are incorrect.
Moses had ONE wife—Sara. No concubines, but had a kid through Hagar his handmaiden.God gave hiom the commandment—about not wanting your neighbor’s WIFE, not wives.
Solomon, on the other hand had many wives and many concubines. David had many wives.
This was not uncommon for royalty fue to political and military alliances.
However the norm was one man and one wife.That was what God proclaimed in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.
As far as contracts, everyday there are contracts with multiple parties—real estate, partnerships etc, with more than one person.
The marriage model God proscribes is the one that works best—for man, for woman, for children and for society.
The Muzzies don’t like homosexuality—so I agree with them there. They believe in polygamy—don’t agree with them there.
You see how women are treated in Jewish and Western societies—compare and contrast to Moslem societies—no contest.
And as far as I know, Islamic terrorists haven’t taken a position on marriage, so your hyperbole is overblown.
So it’s ok for royalty to have many wives but not the common man?
And it’s OK for a Moses to have an illegitimate child but not for anybody else?
History is history, with all its flaws. I didn’t say it was OK.
As for Moses,I mixed him up with Abraham in my previous post to you. Abraham’s wife was Sara and his handmaiden was Hagar. And the results of his lack of faith was Ismael, from whom today’s Muslims are descended.
AFAIK, Moses didn’t have any illegitimate children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.