Gay Group Protest Palin Pick

[BloodEclipse]

Except when it is committed against an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter. Or when it causes injury to an LEO, an employee of a penal facility or juvenile detention center, a firefighter, a person under 14 if committed by one over 18, a mentally or physically disabled person if done by someone with care of that person, an employee of a school corp, or a health care provider. Special classes exist to protect people who are more at risk or who need more protection.

In theory, I agree with you. Everyone should be the same. In practice, not everyone is the same and different groups of people sometimes need different or extra protections.

See I still disagree with Special Laws for Special Groups.

The penalty for assault or murder of any of the above should be no harsher than it is for any citizen. We are all equal. Nothing special because of age, skin color or profession. If the laws for citizens are too lenient to not allow for the protection of groups, then how do they allow for the protection of citizens?

 

[BloodEclipse]

I agree on the government point.

I disagree on the slippery slope point. No one will be able to marry their dog. Dog's are not human and have no ability to enter into a contract. A governmentally recognized marriage is a contract. Minors can already be married in plenty of places, all it takes is parental consent. Why should that be different if an adult and minor of the same sex want to marry? Pedophilia is already a crime, and would still be a crime, with an exception for legally married couples just like now.

Ok I accept that, however I still think it is a slippery slope. I mean if consenting adults are allowed to marry what is wrong with Bigamy or some form of communal marriage? Who are they hurting. Why not have a harem if it is between consenting adults?

 

[Episcopus]

Ok I accept that, however I still think it is a slippery slope. I mean if consenting adults are allowed to marry what is wrong with Bigamy or some form of communal marriage? Who are they hurting. Why not have a harem if it is between consenting adults?

Bigamy hurts undesireable males. Undesireable males are, by and large, who write our laws. There is nothing inherently wrong with bigamy or communal marriages.

 

[techres]

Bigamy hurts undesireable males. Undesireable males are, by and large, who write our laws. There is nothing inherently wrong with bigamy or communal marriages.

Bigamy is likely less damaging than adultery, but I find it difficult to believe that any 3-4+ person arraignment can be as stable as a family requires. Perhaps in the context of a community that can force cohesion it is possible, but lacking that, bigamy (or "polyamory") is just a mess of divided love, etc.

At the same time, and the only thing that really matters here, is wether the state has any business in it at all. Frankly, it does not. Adults are free to do things with other consenting adults.

If adultery is no crime, then I cannot see how bigamy is.

Much of this arguing would cease if we just did not have the State (gov't) in the game of marriage. Frankly, having the state involved does as much damage to religion as religion does to the state.

 

[techres]

Bigamy hurts undesireable males. Undesireable males are, by and large, who write our laws.

Then why am I not a Senator yet?

 

[Cwood]

Then why am I not a Senator yet?

I second that motion

 

[4sarge]

This is what happens when the Government recognizes "Special Groups" and legislates "Special Protection" 'California bans 'brides,' & 'grooms''

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...dment/9506-california_bans_brides_grooms.html

 

[Episcopus]

This is what happens when the Government recognizes "Special Groups" and legislates "Special Protection" 'California bans 'brides,' & 'grooms''

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...dment/9506-california_bans_brides_grooms.html

Every other legal form is titled Party A/Party B or Plaintiff/Defendant. Contracts have been Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 for as long as contracts have existed. Isn't removing the designation of Bride/Groom removing recognition of a special group, not creating it?

 

[Episcopus]

Bigamy is likely less damaging than adultery, but I find it difficult to believe that any 3-4+ person arraignment can be as stable as a family requires. Perhaps in the context of a community that can force cohesion it is possible, but lacking that, bigamy (or "polyamory") is just a mess of divided love, etc.

At the same time, and the only thing that really matters here, is wether the state has any business in it at all. Frankly, it does not. Adults are free to do things with other consenting adults.

If adultery is no crime, then I cannot see how bigamy is.

Much of this arguing would cease if we just did not have the State (gov't) in the game of marriage. Frankly, having the state involved does as much damage to religion as religion does to the state.

I imagine one of the main reasons bigamy isn't allowed is because of the benefits married couples get with regard to inheritence, visitation, medical decisions, property ownership and taxation. But it could also have something to do with harming undesireable males.

 

[4sarge]

Every other legal form is titled Party A/Party B or Plaintiff/Defendant. Contracts have been Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 for as long as contracts have existed. Isn't removing the designation of Bride/Groom removing recognition of a special group, not creating it?

Historically speaking, marriage licenses have never used the terminology of Party A & or Party B. Only a Government Bureaucrat or an attorney would think of changing the verbiage of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman into Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 to appease "Special Interest or Protected Groups"

 

[techres]

Historically speaking, marriage licenses have never used the terminology of Party A & or Party B. Only a Government Bureaucrat or an attorney would think of changing the verbiage of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman into Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 to appease "Special Interest or Protected Groups"

And there-in lies the rub. IF marriage is a holy matrimony recognized &/or sponsored by the state then marriage lends itself to all the fun in the sun of politics. If marriage is a contract recognized and upheld by the state, then welcome to contractual language.

Personally, I go for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's" approach. I.E. marriage is far too important to let the State have any part of it, and by doing so you protect it from any kind of redefinition.

Just like taking money from the Gov't as a religious group doing charity. You take the money, you take on the strings that always come from the gov
t! Personally, my synagogue voted to take no gov't funds, not because we could not make fine use of them, but because we did not want the gov't having anything to do with our faith, religion, etc. Better to keep ourself free of that potential intrusion or slavery.

The state gives with one hand and whallops with the other...

 

[4sarge]

And there-in lies the rub. IF marriage is a holy matrimony recognized &/or sponsored by the state then marriage lends itself to all the fun in the sun of politics. If marriage is a contract recognized and upheld by the state, then welcome to contractual language.

Personally, I go for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's" approach. I.E. marriage is far too important to let the State have any part of it, and by doing so you protect it from any kind of redefinition.

Just like taking money from the Gov't as a religious group doing charity. You take the money, you take on the strings that always come from the gov
t! Personally, my synagogue voted to take no gov't funds, not because we could not make fine use of them, but because we did not want the gov't having anything to do with our faith, religion, etc. Better to keep ourself free of that potential intrusion or slavery.

The state gives with one hand and whallops with the other...

So are you saying marriages in your church are not recognized by the State. I'm saying that the politics (verbiage) changed in California because of the Government endorsed Special Interest Groups. Since the law defines and sanctions legal marriage then one would violate the law unless the law was followed (marriage license, blood test, etc)

 

[techres]

So are you saying marriages in your church are not recognized by the State. I'm saying that the politics (verbiage) changed in California because of the Government endorsed Special Interest Groups. Since the law defines and sanctions legal marriage then one would violate the law unless the law was followed (marriage license, blood test, etc)

I am saying that a marriage should be controlled at the religious level. State should not get to require a singe thing of it because it is not their business. If the state wants to be in the business of some kind of contract that is fine. But my marriage, for instance, was a contract between me, my wife, and God. The state of Indiana should have had nothing to do with it.

But we went along with the certificate, etc., because we did not feel like fighting that war then.

State <-------------------- Apart --------------------> Marriage

Better that way.

Now to Indiana's credit, they do allow a wide variety of people to perform weddings, and I have even done one myself. But the fact that they need an "approved" person to do a religious deed is repulsive in and of itself.

Again, my

 

[Benny]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

 

[techres]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

He could not look any more "questionable" metro sexual...

 

[Episcopus]

Historically speaking, marriage licenses have never used the terminology of Party A & or Party B. Only a Government Bureaucrat or an attorney would think of changing the verbiage of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman into Party A/PartyB or Party 1/Party2 to appease "Special Interest or Protected Groups"

Guilty of being a lawyer, sorry.

My view:
'Holy Matrimony' = My wife and I committing to each other in the eyes of God. A blessing by God, through a pastor, showing his hand in and approval of our relationship.

Marriage(tax benefits, property rights, etc) = a recognition of our living status, relationship and pooled resources, by the State/Fed who then gives us the legal benefits we receive.

You can have the church portion without the legal portion, and you can have the legal portion without the church portion. The state should have nothing to say at all about the church portion. The church should have nothing to say at all about the state portion. Due to convenience/tradition the ceremonies have been merged and one ceremony serves both purpose in most cases, but it is still two separate things.

 

[techres]

Yeah, until I get my wish which is jail for adulterers under some kind of "violation of marital contract" law, I just can't get too worked up about so many "marriage issues" other than just taking it out of the state's hands.

You give me adulterer's prisons and maybe I will get going on the "iron fist of the state" when it comes to their position in relation the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Episcopus]

Yeah, until I get my wish which is jail for adulterers under some kind of "violation of marital contract" law, I just can't get too worked up about so many "marriage issues" other than just taking it out of the state's hands.

You give me adulterer's prisons and maybe I will get going on the "iron fist of the state" when it comes to their position in relation the sanctity of marriage.

Adulterer's prison? Great idea! How do we get the ball rolling on this?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Then why am I not a Senator yet?

Same reason I'm not.

Blessings,
B

 

[4sarge]

Same reason I'm not.

Blessings,
B

I'd Vote for You, Bill