Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Defense of Marriage Act

first, nopoke, i know of a lot of research into this, but there is also research that points the other way And it isn't as common as a lot of people think. A lot of people refer to one poll that said about 10% of people are homosexual, when in reality it is more like 3-4%.



As far as thinking your religion has the definitive answer, that's kind of half-true.

While you can't prove that a religion is 100% true or not, if you don't believe in the majority of your religion, that doesn't say much about your faith. But, people nowadays would rather believe in personal truths than absolute truth.

i.e., "Jesus may be the answer for you, but he's not for me. I have my own personal religion."

More and more people are becoming part of the secular idea that there is no absolute truth. While that is expected of non-religious types, it has spread to Christianity:

In fact, a recent poll of high schoolers who claimed they were born-again christians revealed that about 50% of them say that Jesus is not the Son of God, he did not really rise from the dead, and that there is no absolute truth.

All 3 of these are basic foundations of Christianity. There's something very wrong with this...


and marril, dear lord, if you are going to be so picky about exact terminology...

i was in no way being definitive with my statement.

I agree that the government has no real place in the matter.
 
Last edited:
So I'm opening up a decently old topic. Sorry about that, I haven't been her for a couple weeks. (College is fun just so everyone knows.)

Anyhow, I have a couple of thought provoking ideas and questions.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Most commonly known as Mormons.) For a period in the 1800s, plural marriage, the act of being married to more than one woman, was a common thing amonst church members. (Generally, the rationale is that with the intense amount of men who died while traveling from the East to the West to avoid persecution, the ratio of men to women wasn't even close to being equal. Hence, a man could marry more than one woman in order for all the women to be cared for.) However, when Utah (the territory where most Mormons resided at the time) wanted to become a state, it was requisite that they get rid of polygamy in all forms. The church actually complied. (Side note: At this point in time, polygamy is highly condemned in the LDS church and is grounds for excommunication (removal) from the church.) However, when a few people who still practiced polygamy didn't agree with the US decision, they took their case to the Supreme Court where it was ruled that plural marriage was indeed illegal.

Should this be reversed? If homosexual marriage should be legal, why should polygamy be any different? (Side note: You'll be hard pressed to find a member of the LDS church that wants polygamy or thinks it should even be in existence.) They are both types of marriages which are commonly looked at as akward.

What if I wanted to marry my sister? Or for that matter, what if I wanted to marry a goat I owned? Maybe you don't think marriage between a man and a goat is normal, but I love my goat and I think we ought to receive the same benefits a man and woman who love each other receive.
 
dont worry. most likely, we wont get penalized for "resurrecting" an old topic.

But you do bring some good points into play. If we allow same-sex marriage, then should we allow other types of marriage for religious purposes, as they would bring two beings together? Or are we to limit marriage to "TWO HUMANS may get married?"
 
Is a goat capable of making a legal decision to marry or giving consent to sexual activity? How about a barely-pubescent minor (which, from reading news stories about the 'plural wives' of adult men who have been prosecuted for polygamy, most of these participants ARE when they enter into these arrangements)?

Sorry, I see a big difference between the examples above and same-sex marriages, which are between consenting legal ADULTS...not a coercive, abusive or forced situation as above.

'mom
 
SD PokéMom said:
Is a goat capable of making a legal decision to marry or giving consent to sexual activity? How about a barely-pubescent minor (which, from reading news stories about the 'plural wives' of adult men who have been prosecuted for polygamy, most of these participants ARE when they enter into these arrangements)?

Sorry, I see a big difference between the examples above and same-sex marriages, which are between consenting legal ADULTS...not a coercive, abusive or forced situation as above.

'mom
Click to expand...


The goat one is a big stretch. I'll admit. I use it as hyperbole.

And the key in the people who are prosecuted for polygamy is what you've said. It's generally the ones who have coercively brought women into marriage. That's not to say that plenty of people (especially in the four corners area) participate in polygamy without coercion or are under age.

My biggest argument against homosexual marriage is that there IS precedent for regulating marriage. It was made against polygamy when polygamy was, for lack of a better term, a lot less sick then it is now with the creeps who believe in it (the ones who pick up the barely-pubescent girls you speak of). If you allow homosexual marriage, you will almost uncertainly have to allow polygamy.
 
There were also legal precedents against interracial marraiges...the last of which were overturned not 20 years ago, I believe. And the exact same arguments were made for outlawing such marriages...'for the sake of the children', 'against god's laws' etc. as well as more, specific to that argument which I won't repeat here. I don't see how allowing ONE person, of legal age...to marry ANOTHER PERSON, also of legal age...automatically leads to the statement that polygamy will/should be legal.

'mom
 
I agree with Pokemom. You use false analogies when comparing animals to humans-- the debate isn't even centered around ambiguous terms such as "love". One cannot prove that they love someone else, and it's a nonfactor in the entire debate over same-sex marriages.

The primary difference, from a legal prespecitive, between same-sex and plural (thanks for the PA term, ty) marriages is that there is no way to abuse the laws governing marriage under same-sex marriages than there is right now. You can't get around laws and taxes with a same-sex marriage anymore than you can with a heterosexual marriage. However, when you mix plural marriages into the equation, you require a massive redifinition of many different laws, which also opens the door to fraud, tax evasion, and many legal loopholes that we can't even forsee. When you allow same-sex marriages, you simply keep the same template, but just let some square pegs go into the round holes. With plural marriages, you need to get yourself a new template.

Just because the two topics are about the redefinition of marriage doesn't mean that they'll be leagalized hand-in-hand, and just because one is wrong, doesn't mean the other is too. Same-sex marriages and plural marriages are not analogous.
 
I guess it shows my ignorance, but I've thought the main argument in a lot of these cases is that you should be unable to regulate marriage. Let me look up some of the briefs and/or decisions and get back to you guys on this.

:)
 
Last edited:
Tyais: It may be that those in favor of the Amendment are trying to portray it as such.
Rule one to unfair debating: Demonize your opponent's position.
 
I'm for marriages between 2 people of the same gender. Those kind of marriages are legal in Holland, and there have been no problems yet. I'm not sure what to think of adoptions in those cases, I tend to be against that, because it's almost like Mowgli growing up as a wolf young; it is "unnatural", but on the other hand, I dont think kids ever had the right to grow up "regularly", as harsh as it sounds.

I do wonder why those people insist on marriage, since they can be happy without it and not offend a lot of people at the same time.

On the other hand, there's the "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" which is the most important moral rule of all.

I think a lot of people are scared of the thought of 2 people of the same gender marrying, because they wonder "where does it stop?" What's next? a marriage between 3 people?
 
Last edited:
I do wonder why those people insist on marriage, since they can be happy without it and not offend a lot of people at the same time.
Click to expand...
*sigh* As I'd said back on page two of this thread:
SD PokéMom said:
No, most homosexuals want the protections of marriage so they can: inherit the home they created together with their partner when said partner dies; so they can make medical decisions for their partner should that partner be unconscious and be unable to give consent for treatment which could save their life rather than having to take the time to hunt down some 'next of kin' who they may be estranged from; so they can not be forced to testify against their partner in a court of law, just as I could not be forced to testify against MY husband...all the myriad things that AUTOMATICALLY became my rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES when I married eighteen and a half years ago. We didn't decide to marry because we wanted 'tax and insurance breaks'; we wanted to marry because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together. Every same-sex couple I know in longterm committed relationships wants the same thing as we did!
Click to expand...


As for children, and adoptions...some of the children who are in these families are the biological children of one or the other partner. Others who have been adopted by same-sex couples have spent the majority of their lives in foster care; others have special needs, handicaps, etc. Is it 'better' that these kids stay institutionalized until they are adults, or that they grow up in a loving...albeit 'non-traditional' family?

And as for 'normal'...what about children living with a SINGLE parent, of either gender, of ANY sexual identity? Since these kids aren't in a 'normal' nuclear family, should they be taken away from their families? I repeat:
SD Pokémom said:
heterosexuals have done quite a bit on their own to 'damage' marriage via infidelity, abuse, divorce, cohabitation, children born out of wedlock, etc. etc. etc....yet you don't see anywhere NEAR the amount of hysteria raised over any of it as you do the issue of committed same-sex couples wanting to have their unions legalized.

If 'family values' are a GOOD thing, then how can strengthening families which _already exist_, with and without children, be 'bad'? How can taking custody of a child from the only other parent they know, upon death of a parent be considered "good" for that child?
Click to expand...

And by the way: every homosexual _I_ know was the product of a 'normal' heterosexual marriage...so if straight people can/do have homosexual kids, wouldn't it stand to reason that homosexuals could/would have straight kids?

'mom
 
Last edited:
SD_PokeMom said:
heterosexuals have done quite a bit on their own to 'damage' marriage via infidelity, abuse, divorce, cohabitation, children born out of wedlock, etc. etc. etc....yet you don't see anywhere NEAR the amount of hysteria raised over any of it as you do the issue of committed same-sex couples wanting to have their unions legalized.
Click to expand...

PokeMom, Although I did agree with you on thos state before, I suddenly realized that we are only looking at the outside picture. Just because we SEE something doesnt mean it's real. The reason for this being? Same-sex marriages haven't been legalized yet here in America, so how can we truely see what happens in a relationship of two homosexuals if there havent been any legal documents created related to any sort of separation of a homosexual couples?
 
Arthas_Zero said:
PokeMom, Although I did agree with you on thos state before, I suddenly realized that we are only looking at the outside picture. Just because we SEE something doesnt mean it's real. The reason for this being? Same-sex marriages haven't been legalized yet here in America, so how can we truely see what happens in a relationship of two homosexuals if there havent been any legal documents created related to any sort of separation of a homosexual couples?
Click to expand...
Not in America, no. Just take a look at the other countries that have legalized it. I'll eat a hat if it'd be too different in America.
 
Arthas_Zero said:
PokeMom, Although I did agree with you on thos state before, I suddenly realized that we are only looking at the outside picture. Just because we SEE something doesnt mean it's real. The reason for this being? Same-sex marriages haven't been legalized yet here in America, so how can we truely see what happens in a relationship of two homosexuals if there havent been any legal documents created related to any sort of separation of a homosexual couples?
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you talking about a divorce between a same-sex couple?

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're trying to say...

'mom
 
Last edited:
Okay, what I was trying to say was that maybe we dont know what REALLY goes on in the relationship of homosexuals. You mentioned that we dont see as much hysteria that a heterosexual couple causes in a homosexual relationship. All I was trying to say was that maybe that might not be the case becauese we arent living a homosexual lifestyle. In other words, we dont have any proof (like statistics and such) that proove that homosexuals hardly make as much hysteria, unlike heterosexuals.

Sorry if my last post was confusing, and sorry if I offend anyone with this post. Sometimes, im the kind of guy that needs some sort of proof In order to believe some statements.

EDIT: Infact, I already made my point about this topic. Im sorry if I confused anyone. When I have something to say about an event or topic, I might talk about it to the point where I start confusing people. I should have known when to stop, but I didnt because of my stubborn attitude. I made my point a few weeks ago, so I'll just shut up and sit in the corner before i confuse MORE people.
 
Last edited:
Are we talking about cival unions only, because if so I do believe homosexuals are entitled to it for the reasons mentioned above by 'mom. They deserve these protections just as any other American citizen is.

Now religous unions thats a whole other issue.
 
And no one is saying that religious entities must marry couples which do not follow it's doctrine; as was said long before in this thread, churches such as the Catholic Church ALREADY REFUSE to marry HETEROSEXUAL couples which do not meet it's 'standards' for a sanctified marriage within the church.

But rights and responsibilities granted by the GOVERNMENT to those who have chosen a 'marriage' relationship should be available to ALL adults...not this 'homosexuals aren't being discriminated against, they can marry anyone they want to as long as it's someone of the opposite sex' nonsense.

*sigh* Arthas Zero, the 'hysteria' I was referring to was the hysteria raised by right-wing groups against the very idea of same-sex marriage...not 'hysteria' within the relationship itself. The groups opposing this are asserting that same-sex marriages would 'destroy' 'traditional marraige'; my POINT was that heterosexuals, by the behaviours I listed...abuse, adultery, divorce, having children out of wedlock, Britney Spears' drunken spur-of-the-moment Vegas wedding followed by its immediate annullment, etc....have THEMSELVES 'destroyed' 'traditional marriage' quite well all by themselves.

'mom
 
Last edited:
Ok I'll add my three cents (since I'm going AGAINST the norm by saying three instead of two haha!)

Most of you who have ever debated anything with me know I'm genuinely very conservative, at least politically. Religiously, I'm not. I don't believe in bible infallacy, nor do I believe that Jesus is truly God himself. Neither of those concepts make sense to me, and I can always prove them to you if needbe.

Now on the issue of homosexual marriage (because I can't say *** without being filtered :p), I feel strongly that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I don't like the idea of the term "marriage", though, because MARRIAGE is something that has been used for thousands of years. Marriage can literally mean a "connection", which is what heterosexuality IS, if you catch my drift. Homosexuality isn't.

Oh, and also, I don't think it is very fair to implicate President Bush in this. He had to take a stand on the issue, and if he would've stood FOR homosexual marriage, he would've COMPLETELY lost his political base. Bad idea.

Whether he believes strongly about it or not, I don't know. But the amendment has been called for by conservative Christians... more than President Bush.

Oh, and also: Why tell people they can't be in a relationship and have equal rights when the same people are trying to ENCOURAGE marital relationships with heterosexual couples due to declining marriage rates? HUGE counterproductivity.
 
As I understand it, calling same-sex marriages 'civil unions' would be FINE...except for the fact that civil unions are not universally recognized in all states the way marriage IS. And as long as states had the 'option' to not recognize such unions...and you KNOW there would be: just look at the county in TN that just tried to PASS A LAW to keep homosexuals out :rolleyes:...some people would be able to have legal recognition for their relationships while others would not, because of where they live.

A marriage in one state is automatically recognized in every state, but civil unions are NOT. 'Seperate but equal' has been proven time and again to be inherently UNEQUAL. Unless civil unions were clearly given the SAME legal recognition as marriages everywhere...in other words, marriage in EVERYTHING but name...it's not going to be 'the same as'.

'mom
 
Based on the Full Faith in Credit clause, the states would not be able to do this. There would be a huge argument over States' rights in that case.... That sounds fun :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top