Why is marriage not a right? Do we not all have the right to love someone and be with them? How can that be a privilege? To say that it can, gives the state the subjective right to deny us this for any reason they see fit. This is a problem, and should not be.

As for the rest, I think number one you have let yourself be put into a box by this whole majority rules thinking instead of standing up for your own rights to live freely. I don't think you realize how much of your power you have given away by not saying no.

Secondly, I don't think it'd be chaos, so long as it was known that everyone was to be responsible for themselves and their actions, be them good or bad. I would think people would understand that. Just because people could do anything they wanted, doesn't mean they neccessarily would, or that there would be no consequences for something. The consequences of a choice are built in, you don't exactly need a law to dictate it. To say that you do, and that people would just go crazy with total freedom is quite naive.

In short though, I'd rather take my chances and be able to live free, than live in a society where my ability to live was limited by what others think is right or wrong.

loving and being with someone IS a right we all have

MARRIAGE to someone(legal recognition of a relationship) is NOT a right

as to your first point, I havent been put in a box or kept from 'standing up' for myself, thats why I VOTE and thats why I help on CAMPAIGNS,,,sometimes I am a part of the majority and sometimes Im not

thats not defenselss or in a box, thats just as much reality as 'sometimes you win and sometimes you lose' is

it has little to do with WANTING or TRYING to win,,just accepting that those wins wont happen EVERY TIME

as to the second point, when you state that
'everyone was to be responsible for themselves and their actions, be them good or bad'


everyone already is, but not everyone would do the 'right' things if the CONSEQUENCES were merely of their own choosing

thats not naive, thats been the nature of human beings since time began


thats evident with illegal immigration, do you really think if penalties were harsher, there would be JUST AS MUCH illegal immigration going on?

do you think its possible that by saying, its ok for you to break our laws and sneak into the country, we will let you suffer your own consequences, we are not , by doing NOTHING About it, increasing the incidence of it happening?

the notion of letting people just do whatever they want being chaos is not naive at all


living FREE is living FREE from ALL involvement from anyone else

that means FREE From protections , FREE from assistance in time of NEED, FREE from safe roads and safe foods

people dont aknowledge all the ways government ENABLES us to live as we do by their 'involvement' when they state that they dont want the government to be involved in their life

and with that privilege that comes along with POSITIVE involvement(checking that foods are safer, that air is cleaner, that criminals dont run rampant), comes some SACRIFICE on our part

children want to live free with no sacrifices or responsibility beyond that they CHOOSE to make and have, but at some point we have to grow up,,,

Why shouldn't it be a right? Because everyone gets their panties in a bunch if it is? Ooh......that's a "sin", come on now.

On consequences, what the hell are you teaching people but obedience to authority if we all are put into the same box from the standpoint of the law? You can't learn a damn thing if you aren't given the chance to experience something without the fear of the police or big brother being down your neck if you try to.

Lastly, on what good things the government does for us.......I think you need to look a hell of a lot deeper. If you really truly think they really give a rats about keeping our food safe, keeping our air safe, or protecting us from criminals (which BTW the definition of a criminal has become very subjective), then you're just not paying any attention. All they care about is how to protect their bottom line (read: their pockets), and their control over the populace. They really could care less about any of us the majority of them. You need to wake up.

IM awoke.

Whats wrong with 'obedience'? When did people become so OPPOSED to the notion of 'obedience'?

Let me get this right, if there are 100 people in a group and 80 of them want to go to mcdonalds, and 20 want to go to wendys. Is it still a group if the twenty suddenly break away and say,, we are going to do our own thing now?

isnt part of being a GROUP , coming to some agreements about the details of what and how and where and when the group operates?

cant that be also defined as 'obedience' to what is expected as a PART OF A GROUP? And what is wrong with that?


you cant be a part of a GROUP And insist that all that matters is what you want,, it just doesnt work

and it is logical , then to make decisions based upon what the group(or in lieu of the WHOLE group aggreeing) , the majority of the group want


people that want to live 'free' should not be trying to be a part of a 'society',, they should find a place to themself and do what they want how they want to do it

but if people want to be a part of 'society' they should understand that there will be guidelines and laws in that society that are decided by the 'group'

Firstly, the entire problem with obedience is this:

Once you give people the right to dictate to you what is ok to and what isn't ok to do, no matter how innocent that particular dictation is, you have set a precedent upon which they can dictate just about anything they want for whatever reason they want and you will have to abide by it. This is what is happening in this country with our government and our laws, we gave them an inch, and they have taken a mile. Maybe you like to live in a society where everything is dictated to you, but I don't. I value my rights and liberties we're all supposed to have too much to accept anything less than that.

Secondly, I would contend it is MORE logical to say: "Ok we choose to do this and not that, but we respect your right to do that and not this" and you each go on your own merry way doing what you wish to do. Otherwise, one group is not gonna be happy, and you create needless division over things that really aren't neccessary to be divided on. You see this as well in modern society.

In reference to the Mcdonald's/Wendy's argument, why can't they just do as I state above? That is to say, the 80 who want Mcdonald's go to Mcdonald's, the 20 that want Wendy's go to Wendy's. Then when they are done they meet together and reform again to do whatever. It's not that hard. This way everyone is satisfied, and you don't lose the group because when it's over with, you join together again like before.

everything is not dictated to me. There is quite a grey area being ignored here.

there is a difference between telling people they CANT do something and setting specific CONSEQUENCES for what they do

I can sleep with whomever I choose that is an adult, I cant DICTATE that the government of the PEOPLE must aknowledge that relationship in any way UNLESS THE PEOPLE(As a majority) have decided to do so

I Can shoot someone , if I want, but the government OF THE PEOPLE(majority) have decided the consequence of such action should result in me being 'locked away' or 'killed'


There is a line between whether a government is STOPPING or FORCING us to do something and whether they are merely 'STAYING OUT OF WHAT WE DO'

legal marriage is GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT, they(majority) chose to be INVOLVED IN one particular type of relationship and no others, that stops noone from being in any relationship they choose

as much as some think the problem is a government which mandates too many things, I Think an equal problem is a citizenry which insists it somehow AKNOWLEDGES too many things

I want to do this, so it should be LEGAL cause who are you to say it isnt right? Well, noone said it was ILLEGAL,,,so

that argument is not logical because in all reality you CAN DO what you want concerning relationships, the government has just chosen(majority) to not be INVOLVED With any of those decisions one way or the other unless they are relationships in which children might be produced(male female bonds). A situation that WOULD indeed affect the community in a way that is(for now) much more obvious than any other relationship situation people might choose to engage in.

I agree with Ron Paul. Government should stay out of the marriage issue.

But what is the advantages of getting married?

Is it community property?

1. That simple problem can be solved for any couple. There are prenuptial agreements for strait couples that actually protect them from the liberties of the marriage contract. Very wealthy people usually always have them. I believe in them. They should be fair.

What other advantages are there for being married?

Children custody rights in case of separation or death. That is a problem even with strait couples.

Gay couples who adopt would need to both adopt the same child as a single adult (if that is possible) in the event one of them die. They both need legal right to that child and since marriage is not allowed how would the law protect their rights unless both of them adopted the child as individuals? If they split up, how would the courts decide custody? If they can't adopt as a legal couple then how can they adopt?

Other than money and children, what advantages does marriage have?

1. Its harder to get out of than into. (be warned)
2. Commitment? (you can do that without marriage.)
3. Benefits filing taxes together.
4. Company benefits, health etc.
5. Family insurance benefits etc.
6. Inheritance. (If there is no marriage or will, they could lose their house, and property if it is not legally in both names.)

What else?

Children , in the mind of most voters( at this point anyhow) is probably the one ADVANTAGE that trumps any disadvantage in its significance to the SOCIETY


one can practice medicine without a license, technically, as long as something doesnt go wrong

one can practice law, privately, as long as something doesnt go wrong

the benefit of MARRIAGE , just as the BENEFIT of a law license or a medical license is that the PEOPLE are encouraging a certain standard of practice to AKNOWLEDGE that practicing individual as a DOCTOR, or a LAWYER, or a SPOUSE


my grandmother is not my mother, biology and our agreed upon standards to use biology as part of the definition, makes it so

it doesnt mean my grandmother isnt CAPABLE of everything a mother is, it doesnt mean I Cant call my grandmother my MOTHER
it just means the LAW Is going to recognize her , due to her biology, as my GRANDMOTHER(unless I go through an adoption process)

the beauty is, because this is a democracy,

if you dont agree with a certain standard, than you can WORK and VOTE and put in the effort to organize others who agree to CHANGE the standard


you will win some and you will lose some, if you lose and its important enough keep fighting(like women did for the right to own property or vote,,etc,,) , nothing is set in stone and notning is ever going to be the way that will please EVERYONE, but I certainly begrudge noone for fighting for what they believe in or for an environment thats more of what they 'want' it to be

I know I will continue to do so, and I know the reality that sometimes I will not be successful and sometimes I Will

We (our culture) would have to agree on the basic needs that are common to every human. It’s important to decide what these needs are in order to make sure that we don’t deny those basic needs to any human. The easiest ones to determine are food, clean water, and shelter from the elements, but what else?

Given the wealth, education, and placement within the global network I would think that such things as basic medical care should be an essential human need, and what about the environment a human is born into, does it seem ethical that we should allow babies to be born in the streets or deny a mother who is giving birth what she needs in order to deliver with less risk to both her and the baby? What about love, tender caring touch and the concern of others? What about the freedom to develop and externalize potential and fill the need to find purpose? Do you have any others?

Now think about how we would go about writing laws to assure that every human, within our culture, had what was necessary to fill those basic needs?

Our founding fathers did it by writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – how did the Bible do it and what does the God of Abraham consider the basic human needs of every human?

Furthermore, because we can’t know what the future will hold like when morals might shift due to changes in technology or acceptance of others, wars, and such, we can amend the constitution and create CIVIL CODE (law) so that it continues to reflect the new ideals – such as agreeing that every human has a need for basic medical care or that slavery is not ethical in any form.

How many religions are that flexible? What makes the Christian religion flexible enough to understand what the basic needs of all humans are? What does the bible tell Christians about how to make sure that all basic needs are met? Furthermore what kind of moral changes does the bible endorse and under what conditions?

Many situations arise in our modern world which ancient religions do not address directly. Believers (whatever they believe) have to wing it, make guesses. That’s ok, if that helps an individual determine their OWN behavior in a given situation AND as long as that behavior does not infringe on the freedoms and rights of others.

Now consider that you are Christian living in 1964 (or even 1864) and you have been asked what human needs should be extended to African slaves?

According to your response



you would have to find all verses in the bible that are relevant to slavery and then use all that criteria to decide how slaves should be treated or even if slavery should continue to be legal. Giving all those verses and your rationalizations – what would you have decided???? You may have found your decision on the oppososite side of history, in that case – YES, you would be hiding your religion in a closet like so many homosexuals have had to do.

I have read the bible and taken it apart and analyzed history, words, terminology, and I have read many dozens of books and research papers by very educated people in the fields surrounding biblical history. Still all I have is an opinion and in my opinion the bible was never meant to be a static, dogmatic response to every situation that humans would ever face.

Think about defining basic human needs – it has changed over the years. Even the very value we place on human life has changed over the years; ok, maybe not for you and maybe not for a lot of Christians or other religious followers who are stuck with a limited religious view.

So either you agree with the CURRENT view of basic human ethics or you believe according to the bible but since they are different you can’t uphold both (ACCORDING TO YOU). I think you’re wrong.

YOU can follow the bible, as long as you realize that having slaves is against our civil law. Do you think that’s an infringement of your religious freedom? Anyway, you can believe slavery in biblical custom is just fine, but how often are you going to take that sentiment out of the closet and voice your opinion in public???? You have the civil right to do that you know? Your choice – closet or public?

The fact is you have a choice and I’m happy you have that choice because every human has a basic need to find purpose and religion often fills that need for a lot of people. But that is your purpose and you have designed the dogma by which you fill that need at least have the decency to allow other the same opportunity to find their own purpose with as much freedom as you have been afforded to find your own. What that means is you owe it to your fellow humans to make sure your beliefs do not infringe of their basic human needs or their human rights which is found in "civil law" not biblical law.

Slavery and religion:
I started a new thread:

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/303963