Reply #57

In the discussion thread: Have you ever heard anyone ever give a single 'coherent' reason to be against marriage equality? [View all]

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #56)

Mon May 14, 2012, 07:40 PM

malthaussen (2,224 posts)

57. I was using "prior" in the logical sense...

... not the temporal one, although both are true. Confusion arises because civil marriage is grounded in the religious rite. I suggest that the civil right has come about because of multiplicity of religions within the State: when there is only one religion, there is no such thing as a civil marriage, so far as I am aware. The necessity of giving "full faith and credence" to the rites of another faith is what has produced the civil format. I will further suggest that the necessity of giving "full faith and credence" is also the reason why same-sex marriage should not be prohibited. The rite may or may not be to the taste of some religion or another, some communicant or another. But the US Constitution establishes that it is not the business of government to meddle in religious issues.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

58 replies	Author	Time	Post
Have you ever heard anyone ever give a single 'coherent' reason to be against marriage equality? [View all]	NNN0LHI	May 2012	OP
No, Sir: And If they Meant It About 'Preserving Marriage' They Would Be Crusading Against Divorce...	The Magistrate	May 2012	#1
And adultery. nt	laundry_queen	May 2012	#29
And many a battle against those -- divorce and adultery -- has been fought and lost.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#36
Hell, I have a pretty good imagination and I can't even THINK of one. I've certainly ...	11 Bravo	May 2012	#2
Of Course. Any person that owns a co. that will have to pony up health care, retirement, etc.	WingDinger	May 2012	#3
Actually, retirement benefits can go to whomever one designates.	GoCubsGo	May 2012	#10
Not so with Social Security, which is all the retirement $ most folks will ever see.	kestrel91316	May 2012	#16
that's not a "cogent" argument (as the OP asked)...it's an argument that denying civil rights saves	CreekDog	May 2012	#28
So that lesbian woman at the next desk should pay for Social Security that	JDPriestly	May 2012	#37
They can't say it, but they try to dance around it...	targetpractice	May 2012	#4
Nope	sakabatou	May 2012	#5
No	Solly Mack	May 2012	#6
Yes	thelordofhell	May 2012	#7
Well, "Because I don't like it" is a perfectly coherent reason	malthaussen	May 2012	#8
I've never heard a single rational argument about why marriage equality may be detrimental to ANYONE	kestrel91316	May 2012	#17
There is one just upthread.	malthaussen	May 2012	#20
Most/many employers do not cover family	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#22
No.	Starry Messenger	May 2012	#9
I never have.	Jazzgirl	May 2012	#11
Nope	Kalidurga	May 2012	#12
no	d_r	May 2012	#13
sure	arely staircase	May 2012	#14
Well, Since You Asked,	On the Road	May 2012	#15
Not bad. But you ignore the Common Law.	malthaussen	May 2012	#19
marriage does not require a wedding in texas	arely staircase	May 2012	#21
I don't know if it's still the case, but at one time in Texas	HillWilliam	May 2012	#31
dont know about the two witnesses0	arely staircase	May 2012	#47
No marriage requires a wedding	obamanut2012	May 2012	#53
First, what state requires a ceremony	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#23
It's not that hard to parse	malthaussen	May 2012	#25
Then that isn't an argument for equal marriage, IMO.	Ruby the Liberal	May 2012	#33
Poster defines "marriage" as being among members of both sexes	malthaussen	May 2012	#35
In fact, as I have posted in the past, the word "marriage" has two meanings.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#38
The religious definition is prior to the civil definition, however.	malthaussen	May 2012	#39
Yes, the religious one came first, which is why people are confused.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#56
I was using "prior" in the logical sense...	malthaussen	May 2012	#57
Never in my lifetime.	Rex	May 2012	#18
No. All the arguments start from the false premise that homosexuality is an abomination.	aikoaiko	May 2012	#24
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment	malthaussen	May 2012	#26
the need for small tribes	arely staircase	May 2012	#27
Ha, I hadn't thought of that at all	malthaussen	May 2012	#30
That is because in primitive societies and earlier ages, society feared underpopulation.	JDPriestly	May 2012	#40
but all societies everywhere have not so conspired	RainDog	May 2012	#45
As to your first point	malthaussen	May 2012	#46
actually, that's not the case	RainDog	May 2012	#49
Ah, interesting. Dr Boswell would appear to have lucked into a good lode	malthaussen	May 2012	#51
Oh, and what I also find really interesting	RainDog	May 2012	#50
Most people haven't read The Source	malthaussen	May 2012	#52
thanks for the conversation	RainDog	May 2012	#54
The pleasure was mine, assuredly.	malthaussen	May 2012	#58
I heard Rush Limbaugh talking about it interfering with his ability to get married every couple of	madinmaryland	May 2012	#32
yes " I don't want to do ritual you straight people do" said one of my childhood friends, He said it	mulsh	May 2012	#34
I don't belive the polls, I don't think anyone for the most part, cares if gays get married.	crazyjoe	May 2012	#41
Then with respect, you live up to your user name	malthaussen	May 2012	#42
Never have, never will.	Initech	May 2012	#43
religious belief does not require coherent thought	RainDog	May 2012	#44
Because it would create more married couples, requiring more married benefits?	haele	May 2012	#48
You ask the best questions, Don. n/t	EFerrari	May 2012	#55

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.