Context of "Homosexuality is an abomination"

[Pickle]

Although it may be "morally wrong" to marry your cousin, no one is forcing them to do it and though it maybe taboo, if it isn't genetically problematic, I don't understand why the government should punish people for it. As to polygymy. It is different from homosexuality in that there are more than two people in the relationship (duh). That having been said, in civil matters (like taxes and such) it can cause huge problems. (but two people, regardless of sex can file taxes just the same as the next two people)

No one is forcing homsexuals to marry either. I don't see your point.

Going to polygamy. What if 3 homosexuuals wanted to get married? The number of people is not the issue of this thread. The sexual orientation is.

There is as much fanatacism against homosexuality as there is against Christianity. Moot point.

[cphilip]

... but the argument can be made that any allowance outside of Heterosexual marrage opens you up to all the other possibilities. And so the fear of people not wanting to do it is based somewhat on that quagmire. I can see that a series of documents could be put forth allowing Polygamy to keep their inheritance straight. It could be done.

Now lets make sure everyone understands we are talking about the civil legal act of Marrage. Not the religeous ceremony of "Wedding" which even when preformed must be sanctioned by a marrage contract to be legal. Or at least condoned by some law recognising it. Otherwise you could go through a wedding ceremony and it would not be a marrage.

[NJPaint]

... but the argument can be made that any allowance outside of Heterosexual marrage opens you up to all the other possibilities. And so the fear of people not wanting to do it is based somewhat on that quagmire. I can see that a series of documents could be put forth allowing Polygamy to keep their inheritance straight. It could be done.

Now lets make sure everyone understands we are talking about the civil legal act of Marrage. Not the religeous ceremony of "Wedding" which even when preformed must be sanctioned by a marrage contract to be legal. Or at least condoned by some law recognising it. Otherwise you could go through a wedding ceremony and it would not be a marrage.

But sanctity of marriage requires a man and a woman... But sanctity of marriage is part of religion... So then why is that part of the laws...

Inheritance is easy, people decide what to do with their inheritance (how it is divided out). I am talking about taxes. Do you setup new tax brackets for people with more than one spouse? How do you tax them? Do groups of 3 have different taxes than groups of 4? That requires expanding/changing tax laws (thinking before changing). A homosexual civil union is only two people and can be compared (tax wise) to a heterosexual couple.

[cphilip]

Sanctity and Legality are two different things.

Laws are not anymore enforced or written by the churches. This is the principal of our country to allow freedom of reiigeon. Not freedom of law.

[NJPaint]

Sanctity and Legality are two different things.

Laws are not anymore enforced or written by the churches. This is the principal of our country to allow freedom of reiigeon. Not freedom of law.

And seperation of church and state? So aren't you "anti-american" (anti-constitution) if you want to enforce laws based in the church?

[Konigballer]

I love that open letter!!

Thats stuff I never understood about practising chrisitans, some biblical text and dogma is still taken seriously and adhered too, while most of the crazier things mentioned in the Bible, and boy is there some weird stuff, is either ignored or just swept under the rug. How can you ignore the "word of God"?

If the Bible is the true "word of God", and therfore infallible, how can christians pic and choose? It just sounds kind of hypocritial to me.......of course this is coming from the kid who was "expelled" from Sunday school when I argued about the scientific impossibility of the Noah's Ark story. What can I say, I was an inquisitive, free-thinking 4th grader.

But to each his own

[Pickle]

Again, that goes back to the Old Testament. At least pull something from the New Testament.

[NJPaint]

Again, that goes back to the Old Testament. At least pull something from the New Testament.

I don't understand, its all the Word of God... Yes, its all from the Old Testament...

[Pickle]

Yes it is all the word of God but when Christ died on the cross he made a new covenenant with man. This new covenenant no longer bound us to the rituals of the Old Testament. They are still good rules to go by but Christians are not bound by them. They are however, bound to the New Testament. Chrsitians are picking and choosing. Well, they aren't supposed to. Many do, including myself sometimes, and it is wrong.

[Konigballer]

Well at least your honest Pickle

.....you know I never thought I'd ever call somebody "Pickle", where did that name come from?

[cphilip]

And seperation of church and state? So aren't you "anti-american" (anti-constitution) if you want to enforce laws based in the church?

I have no idea what your talking about there. I said change the law. And the law, as it stands, is not based on Church anymore. Its based on law... Plain and simple. Want it changed? Change the law. Nothing anti american about it either way. Enforce the laws because thats what the majority of the people decided was in the best legal interest at the time. If times change so do laws... Laws are often a reflection of morality and Church people do indeed make up some of the people of the majority and thier values are reflected in the Laws and should be. But its moderated by constitutional balance. Thus the balance beam and the blindfold of the law

Lets not turn this into a religeous debate or it gets closed.

[NJPaint]

I have no idea what your talking about there. I said change the law. And the law, as it stands, is not based on Church anymore. Its based on law... Plain and simple. Want it changed? Change the law. Nothing anti american about it either way. Enforce the laws because thats what the majority of the people decided was in the best legal interest at the time. If times change so do laws...

My point is that the constitution specifically calls for a seperation of church and state. The primary premise for having "man and woman marriage" is based in Judeo-Christian beliefs. So those laws are tie our state (US law) to the Judeo-Christian faith.

Edit: and cphilip, pickle answered my question pretty well. As far as I'm concerned this can be closed if it causes any problems.

[NJPaint]

Yes it is all the word of God but when Christ died on the cross he made a new covenenant with man. This new covenenant no longer bound us to the rituals of the Old Testament. They are still good rules to go by but Christians are not bound by them. They are however, bound to the New Testament. Chrsitians are picking and choosing. Well, they aren't supposed to. Many do, including myself sometimes, and it is wrong.

Where exactly does it say this? (Interesting concept and would explain a lot) Is it from scripture? Church teachings?

[brianlojeck]

This is why I'm a libertarian.

(I can hear it now : "This is why you organize books by author and subject?")

Eliminate all but the most essential laws and programs, and let everyone sleep with whom/whatever they like. ;-)

-------------------------------
I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic, or an unbeliever."
-- Daniel Boorstin

[spantol]

I'm from the "it ain't hurting me" school of thought on the cousin thing. If two consenting cousins want to marry, it's not the government's place to deny that. The reason we don't generally do that comes down to cultural mores. We generally consider it icky, so we don't do it. This is how a number of people, probably most people, feel about the gay marriage issue. Cultural mores tend to drift a bit over time; in a few hundred years, maybe society will tolerate it.

I'd still think it icky, though.

Laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying could be challenged today, if sufficient people shared that agenda, completely independant of what happens with the gay marriage issue. The one does not necessarily lead to the other.

If homosexuals are allowed to be Married (legaly) then why do we stop Polygamy? I mean they all agree to be married and so whats the harm? And further down the line why do we have laws against you marrying your First Cousin? Statistics prove that there is little chance of genetic disorder and even if there were the family history is well known so they would tend not to have children if there is risk. We breed animals that close together for genetic advantages. Why would we not "keep it all in the family" if these is no real medical reason for it?


are those some kind of moral based law too? Would allowing Homosexuals to be legaly married open up those laws to challenge as well?