A rationalist point of view on gay marriage

The Declaration does not say that explicity. It refers to "god's law". Here is what is allowed by God's law:

 

No, the quote was accurate. The words "say" what was quoted.

 

Notice how all the examples are between a man and a woman.

 

No, they are between a man and women, not a woman.

The bible and the US have been mixed and matched on marriage from the very beginning of the US through to today.

Plus, few branches of Christianity would bless the union of Abraham and his wife's servant, Hagar or the union of Lott and his two daughters, even though God did.

 

Because that was the common form of a marriage at the time.

The founders were aware that other forms of marriage existed (interracial for example, and they were certainly aware of the various forms of marriage in the bible), yet made no effort to make other forms of marriage illegal. If they did not care, why should we?

Can you cite the specific parts of the Declaration you are referring to?

 

They are MULTIPLE marriages, NOT one between three or more people. Each and every one of them between one man and one woman. The wives don't marry each other, they only marry the man.

 

lol. There were plural marriages. Don't try to weasel out of that. There were multiple women married to one man at the same time.

 

The "founders" didn't write the UN declaration of Human Rights, it was the UN

Well, first, you made up that bit that the UN declaration refers to "god's law". And any founders involved in writing colonial or state law regarding marriage did in fact limit marriage to men and women. Not because of religion but instead because of biology. Just as religion limits marriage to men and women because of biology.

Article 1.
All human beings are.....
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to....
Article 3.
Everyone has the right .....
Article 4.
No one shall .....
Article 5.
No one shall be ......
Article 6.
Everyone has the right .....
Article 7.
All are equal ....
Article 8.
Everyone has the right .....
Article 9.
No one shall be .....
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled ....
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged .....
(2) No one shall be .....
Article 12.
No one shall be .....
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right ......
(2) Everyone has the right.......
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right .....
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right .....
(2) No one shall be ......

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Correct, and the women ARE NOT married to each other because marriage was only between a man and a woman.

 

oic what you're worried about! But, I don't even know what that means, as they were all part of one big happy family.

How about just noticing that the bible is full of exceptions and mismatches with what we've done in America at every point in our history?

Plus, we recognize homosexuality today as a state that is not a choice, something different from prison sex, the assaultive behavior in the story of Lott, and other cases of same sex behavior of that time. They simply didn't have the science to provide the evidence we have of that today.

 

Now, that I agree with.

But, you seemed like you wanted to exclude same sex couples. So, that has me wondering.

 

Yes, I did, and its freakn revolting.

 

That's not what I'm observing. The buildings I'm seeing go up are opting for the other direction: adding doors to the stalls and putting this on the entry to the room.

I think folks just believe it's less expensive, eliminates unnecessary conflicts, and still gets the job done.

​

​

 

*shrug* You're entitled to have that opinion.





​

 

In Italy there's also the legal way, I could start a political process to obtain what I think is real equality.

 

Unisex public toilets are absolutely the best possible choice, at the end, in our homes, it's difficult we've got separated toilets ...

 

Predictable sentence.
But you don't grasp the point: marriage in nature isn't. Even some birds [like the albatross] who live in couple for their entire life don't go to a priest or to a public officer to get married ... but I'm not aware of long standing couples of albatross made by two subjects of the same gender.

What we call "marriage" in nature is "to gather and stay together to reproduce and grow the new generation". Then, this varies a lot from species to species. In human species, in nature we see couples made by a male and a female subjects [again, wild and savage tribes found in some remote parts of the world in the last century haven't showed a great social acceptance of stable gay couples in their natural world ...].

 

We ought never oblige people of faith to participate in homosexual conduct, but then we don't oblige workers ( unless they are prostitutes) to do so either. there is nothing in the Bible about participating in weddings of sinners or baking their cakes or making floral arrangements for sinning bridal parties.

The first amendment does not promise theists that they will never have to make hard choices between their God, their faith, and their governmental obligations. There are too many sects, faiths and interpretations of each, to commit or ensure that every theist employer or employee gets a clear conscience unencumbered by any statute, or regulation or order from a boss.

They need to either suck it up and compromise or get into another line of work or enterprise that allows them a theologically pristine environment every day.

 

Like many people, the thought of gay marriage does not make me overly comfortable, but that should remain my problem and not extend out to gay couples. The concept is new and will take time to fully get used to it. I am very happy in my marriage to my wife so how can I not want all others to experience similar happiness? Life can be tough at times. As an old scuba diver...I believe that we should all have the opportunity to go through it using the buddy system to help each other out.

 

It says no such thing as I have pointed out numerous times

- - - Updated - - -

And the words say that men and women can marry. Not that a man can only marry a woman.

 

????? Its a historical fact.

 

There is no marriage in nature. It's purely a human construct.

So what?

And what we call marriage in the law is entirely different.

Same sex couples have existed for the entirety of recorded human history.

 

No, it doesn't. That is still someone else's business. My opinion of your business doesn't transform your business into my business. If that were the case, everything would be illegal because I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding enough different groups of people to make everything illegal or wrong or whatever you're trying to say same-sex marriage is.

Should we do that too? Should only things that everyone agrees on be legal?

 

It's not. Your opinion as to what composition is required for a family to be fundamental to society is ... your opinion.





​

 

No, it is the historical fact of what has been fundamental to society. Fathers and mothers providing and caring for their own children together.