Jul 30 2012: Thank you Barry for addressing my question. I like your point on how even if it is not excluded by definition, that doesn't necessarily make it legitimate. I was truly looking for a reason, and you are the only person to provide one. Also, when writing my original post I was hoping to address the definition of marriage, not only debate everyone on homosexual marriage. Sorry if I wasn't as clear as I had hoped.
Jul 27 2012: You seem to have missed that my entire point in starting this discussion was that different people define marriage as different things.
In order for the government to regulate it (so they can offer marriage licenses, benefits, etc.) they have to have some sort of definition.
In order to establish a definition, all the viewpoints must be considered. And some people would have no problem with a man marrying his daughter or with polygamy, so those must be considered in order for the government to have a defintion. I brought up the point to see if people considered these examples as somehow different than homosexual marriage.
You really don't seem to want to answer that question, and that is fine if you choose. But I think it is very pertinent because some people would feel discriminated against if you were to ban these two examples.
Jul 27 2012: Many of the posts here have talked about defining marriage, and that was part of my originial post. In order to define it these questions would have to be taken into account. Therefore, it has everything to do with it. The exact same argument that people's rights were being denied could be used to support both polygamy and incest.
I was hoping to get other's opinions on if those examples would somehow be different and could be regulated. If you do not want to address them, that is fine. However, I do hope someone would explain the reason these cases would be different (if that is the case).
Jul 27 2012: After reading all of the posts (and thanks to everyone who posted; I feel it's been a good discussion), two points keep coming to me.
1) Many people have made it very clear they don't think we can define marriage or regulate it based on our personal beliefs. If that is the case, it is possible to define marriage at all? For example, would it be possible to keep a father from marrying his daughter, or a man from having multiple wives?
2) This goes beyond homosexual marriage, but some have also said things like morality is subjectice, or that laws cannot be based on moral beliefs. My question is if this is the case, what can laws be based upon (this was addressed below by Matt Schultz)?
Jul 27 2012: Your first paragraph tells God to stay out of our business, but your third wants him to fix everything. Kinda opposing view points, don't you think? (I realize you were being somewhat sarcastic, just thought I would point it out anyway).
Also, I have two questions after reading your post:
1) If we should be able to marry whomever we want, and laws are stupid and shouldn't apply, would you be okay with a father marrying his daughter, or a man having multiple wives?
2) If we don't base laws on morality, then what should laws be based on?
Jul 26 2012: We do have jobs, but hunting is a very practical way to get food without spending a lot of money. Not to mention it's good for the animal popoulations.
Also, I don't know how much you know about farming, but starting a farm is almost impossible. Most small farmers are getting bought out by bigger ones as it is.
Jul 26 2012: Sorry, I was not sure what was included in civil unions. But to me that would be simple: civil unions should include those things you speak of (and others I'm sure you didn't mention).
Also, I realize those are other topics, and I apologize if I am discussing something here that should be its own thread. I simply stated them to show my opinion that the argument "people love each other and deserve equal rights, so they can be married if they want" can be applied to many situations that would not be acceptable (though I can't say I've done a lot of research into opinion on those topics).
Jul 26 2012: As far as what it should be, I think a lot of people are trying to work out something that would work (such as a civil union).
And yes I agree with equal rights, but telling people they have a right to anything is a stretch. What do you say to a father who wants to marry his daughter, or a man who wants to have multiple wives, etc.?
Jul 26 2012: I do agree with you that they deserve benefits with regards to health care and issues like that, but I think it would be something different (due to my definition of marriage, as described in my original post). I think that would be the fairest way to try to treat them equally.
Yes I'm aware of that. So you think it should be left up to individual state to decide?
TEDCred score: +0.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Is the Firestorm Against Chik-Fil-A Justified?
Can he believe and say what he wants? Yes
Can a city stop them from coming there based on this? No.
It kind of seems like it has been blown way out of proportion.
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
In order for the government to regulate it (so they can offer marriage licenses, benefits, etc.) they have to have some sort of definition.
In order to establish a definition, all the viewpoints must be considered. And some people would have no problem with a man marrying his daughter or with polygamy, so those must be considered in order for the government to have a defintion. I brought up the point to see if people considered these examples as somehow different than homosexual marriage.
You really don't seem to want to answer that question, and that is fine if you choose. But I think it is very pertinent because some people would feel discriminated against if you were to ban these two examples.
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
I was hoping to get other's opinions on if those examples would somehow be different and could be regulated. If you do not want to address them, that is fine. However, I do hope someone would explain the reason these cases would be different (if that is the case).
A comment on Conversation: homosexual marriage
1) Many people have made it very clear they don't think we can define marriage or regulate it based on our personal beliefs. If that is the case, it is possible to define marriage at all? For example, would it be possible to keep a father from marrying his daughter, or a man from having multiple wives?
2) This goes beyond homosexual marriage, but some have also said things like morality is subjectice, or that laws cannot be based on moral beliefs. My question is if this is the case, what can laws be based upon (this was addressed below by Matt Schultz)?
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
Also, I have two questions after reading your post:
1) If we should be able to marry whomever we want, and laws are stupid and shouldn't apply, would you be okay with a father marrying his daughter, or a man having multiple wives?
2) If we don't base laws on morality, then what should laws be based on?
A reply on Conversation: NO MORE GUNS, LET THE CHILDREN GROW UP.
Also, I don't know how much you know about farming, but starting a farm is almost impossible. Most small farmers are getting bought out by bigger ones as it is.
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
Also, I realize those are other topics, and I apologize if I am discussing something here that should be its own thread. I simply stated them to show my opinion that the argument "people love each other and deserve equal rights, so they can be married if they want" can be applied to many situations that would not be acceptable (though I can't say I've done a lot of research into opinion on those topics).
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
And yes I agree with equal rights, but telling people they have a right to anything is a stretch. What do you say to a father who wants to marry his daughter, or a man who wants to have multiple wives, etc.?
A reply on Conversation: homosexual marriage
Yes I'm aware of that. So you think it should be left up to individual state to decide?
Haha ok, thanks :)