Jump to content

Petitions delivered by Eagle Scout over Anti-Gay Policy


Engineer61

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can't, because marriage isn't a right.

 

SP, I am usually on board with you, but you are wrong here. There is a general duty to get married (in order to propagate the race), therefore marriage is a right. That doesn't mean it is an absolute -- you can't marry a sheep, a pig, a child, someone who is already married, or a member of the same sex -- but it is a right nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't, because marriage isn't a right.

 

SP, I am usually on board with you, but you are wrong here. There is a general duty to get married (in order to propagate the race), therefore marriage is a right. That doesn't mean it is an absolute -- you can't marry a sheep, a pig, a child, someone who is already married, or a member of the same sex -- but it is a right nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

Hello Peregrinator,

 

 

If marriage is a right, where do you get off saying you can't marry your brother, sister, several wives (or husbands) or whatever?

 

 

Please explain how you draw such a line in a way that wouldn't be undermined by exactly the same line of argument that is used to promote marriage between homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I'm agreeing with Merlyn for once! This is quite unusual....

 

Based on the cases Merlyn cited, Marriage has been deemed a right, and this term the 9 greatest Legal and Constitutional Minds in this Nation will decide a case about gay marriage.

 

I look forward to it.

 

Relating this to the BSA, since this is a Scouting forum, the BSA has to get in front of this issue, and the only way it can do this is by changing it's policy. It may lose some members, but I think it will be just like DADT. People freaked about it, and changing the policy has had zero impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeattlePioneer writes:

If the Supreme Court deemed a horse to have three legs, how many legs would a horse have?

 

A: Legally, three, just as marijuana is (legally) classified as a narcotic, even though it isn't a narcotic.

 

A more pertinent question would be:

Q: If the supreme court says two men or two women have a right to get married, what kind of relationship would such couples have?

 

A: Legally, they would be married and be each other's spouses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeattlePioneer writes:

Thaaats right. You have just proved that legal and political decisions have no necessary relationship to the facts or reality.

 

And since the argument over gay marriage is only concerned with legal recognition, and not religious or other types of recognition, you have just admitted that legal decisions are the only ones that matter in this case.

 

I suppose the Supreme Court deserves a measure of credit for describing their decisions as "opinions."

 

Unlike some who pretend to speak for gods?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Merlyn,

 

 

I've never claimed I speak for any supernatural being.

 

 

I anchor my beliefs in the rational concept of natural law, as I've described earlier.

 

 

However --- still no answer to my earlier question:

 

 

>

 

My liberal friends like to suggest there is an obvious bright line where their arguments for sexual liberation stop. From what I see, there is none.

 

If someone loves their brother or sister, why shouldn't they be able to marry them?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...