Gay Group Protest Palin Pick

[BloodEclipse]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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]

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

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]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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

Then why am I not a Senator yet?

[Cwood]

Originally Posted by techres

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''

http://ingunowners.com/forums/politi...es_grooms.html

[Episcopus]

Originally Posted by 4sarge

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

http://ingunowners.com/forums/politi...es_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]

Originally Posted by techres

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]

Originally Posted by Episcopus

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"