Straight people celebrated too :!
You know there must be gay dudes out there annoyed this bill passed and now has to get married despite not wanting to and using it as a scapegoat all these years.
The roles should be reverse, allow gay people to marry and restrict straight marriage for some time to make it fair.
Way to go, krnyc!
if modern religion is accepting of gays, which it generally is, especially within Protestantism, denying gay marriage is actually a denying your right to religion. the Anglican Church of Canada officially blesses same-sex unions so in Canada, denying gay marriage would be a clear violation of gays right to religion. this, in my opinion, is why gays should be allowed to marry while siblings cannot. in this tense, marriage remains a relgious act and justifies gays passion about marriage over union.
^thats pretty weak. Some religions permit polygamy, is denying polygamy denying freedom? Munch munch…
Ok, let’s go there. Putting religion aside, why shouldn’t two consenting adults be allowed to marry even if they are siblings? There would still be laws against inbreeding so can’t use that as an excuse.
Aside from the “ew, that’s gross” reaction, I’ve never heard a good arguement against consensual family relations by adults.
True, Jamie and Cersei shouldn’t have to hide…we want who we want…
I think the sex is legal in some states. Only marriage is not. Maybe a stepping stone can be that the sex is acceptable provided that your sister is really hot.
I sort of get Matt’s argument regarding the origins of marriage in religion. However, marriage is really an economic and political institution nowadays. Religion and policy were often synonymous in history. That is not necessarily the case today, so the link between marriage and religion is less relevant.
Point 3: I do think it is unfair that a dying person can elect a random other person (of either sex now) to receive their entire estate tax free. However, you cannot elect this benefit to go to your direct family members.
My understanding of Mormonism is that Mormons permit polygamy but do not require it, therefore the Mormon position today is that since polygamy is against the law in the US and not required by the religion, Mormons should not be polygamous. If the law ever changes, Mormons would then be happy to bless polygamous relations, but for now, they are not officially polygamous. But it would not be considered a restriction of religious freedom for legal purposes unless Mormons required their members to marry more than one partner as part of their religion.
Of course, there may be other religions that require polygamy (though I don’t know which ones they are, or how that would work, exactly, since if every married man has 4 wives, and there are roughly equal numbers of men and women, who would the remainder of the men marry).
I’ve heard (but can’t confirm) that most islamic societies that allow polygamy also require that previoius wives be ok with it and require that the husband be able to support the new wife without unduly burdening the old wife. Although presumably the husband can coerce existing wives to accept a new wife because islamic divorce (at least the religious part of it) is pretty straightforward: saying “I divorce thee” three times in public.
Each other.
Not quite, Matts argument was that gay marriage is accepted by many religions, so to deny gay marriage would be infringing religious freedom. Polygamy would be the obvious parallel in this case.
I think the deal here is that you can still practice Mormonism without having multiple hot wives. So, a society that does not permit polygamy does not prevent you from being Mormon.
However, if Mormonism required you to have multiple wives, then a non-polygamous society would restrict your religious freedom.
Or at least that is what bchad seems to be saying.
Yes, but you can also practice any religion without being gay-married. No religion requires that aomebody be gay-married. So banning GM would not infringe religious freedom.
I recall seeing a story a couple weeks ago about a gay couple who had legally been father and son until recently. One partner adopted the other partner (as an adult) so each would have a legal connection to the other for healthcare related issues (i.e. some hospitals only allow family members to visit, only next of kin can give authorization for care if the patient is unable to consent, etc.). They got married when their state passed a law allowing gay marriage.
Yes, I don’t disagree with that. Only Matt was arguing that gay marriage is necessary for religious freedom.
Yes, exactly.
That is true too. But I was never making the case that gay marriage is about religious freedom. I was actualy arguing that religious freedom isn’t really a big issue here, except to the extent that if your religion requires you to hate people, presumably you hate it more when those people end up get something they want and you’re not as able to make them miserable as before.
The closest you can get to religious freedom arguments is that “My religion says that I must kill gays who are married and I am not allowed to kill such people; my constitutional rights are being infringed!!!” which clearly doesn’t hold legal water. In any case, most religions who demand killing gay people do not actually require such people to be married.
false. living with a partner and having sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin in most religions. instituting laws that prevent you from properly practicing your religion is a clear violation of your religious rights. not allowing gay marriage forces gays to choose between religion and having a sexual partner. this is why it is different. if polygymy was a requirement, then your point would stand. marriage to one sexual partner is a requirement for most religions.
my thoughts are that since the Anglican Church of Canada blesses gay marriages in Canada, it was implied that it would bless them in the U.S. if gay marriage was legal. refusing gay marriage therefore violated U.S. gays’ right to the freedom of religion.
Didn’t the Anglican Church split into two branches over the issue of gay marriage and gay clergy?
Interestingly enough, although the Bible contains a number of passages that do suggest that men having sex is frowned on by the Almighty, there seems to be nothing in the Bible to suggest that lesbianism or bisexual women are disallowed. I learned this when I had a bisexual Jewish girlfriend.
Indeed, given that polygamy was permitted in the Old Testmanet, there was presumably a fair amount of women keeping each other busy going on while the husband was working on whoever his favorite was at that time. And group sex with multiple wives of your own was presumably a multiple mitzvah when done on the sabbath.
And although it was prohibited for a priest’s daughter (ancient Jewish priests, not Christian priests) to become a prostitute, there was nothing prohibited about prostitution in general. Moreover, Adultery was adultery only if the woman was married at that time, so men certainly could visit prostititutes, as well as have sex with foreign women (as long as they didn’t marry them).
Given that the bible was most likely written by heterosexual men, it makes sense that they would not disallow intimate relations between women.