Ban the consumption of Pork!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Again you are not right, an equal analogy to banning all food would be banning all human interaction.
Banning one food is equal to banning only one type of human interaction, and you were the one who tried to equate it to marriage.
Your analogy fails because nobody suggested that marriage be banned, that nobody would be able to partake.
I agree with you about what should be done legally speaking. I do not agree with you that allowing gay marriage would be violative of someone's right to freely practice there own religen.
Allowing others to do something is not prohibiting the free exersize of religen, unless your reliegn requires you to be an authoritarian over others.
uscitizen
Villified User
A homosexual pork chop now. Keep things striaght there Charver.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm glad you agree with me. The whole point of my solution is to resolve the issue without regard for what mine or your personal beliefs are. You don't have to agree with me about violation of religious practice, but passing a law to directly contradict a religious practice, is abridging the right to practice it freely. Examples I gave in analogy are; Passing a law that says pork products can be called 'kosher' if the producer wants to, or passing a law banning the display of crosses in public as 'hate symbols'. Neither of these laws would prohibit anyone from "practicing their religion" in a literal sense, but both, like 'gay marriage' are a direct assault on the established practices and customs of religion. This is precisely why the 'religious right' is opposed to 'gay marriage' and will not change their opinion on the subject.
The beauty of my solution is, they don't have to, and neither do you. It's not relevant if you understand my point about infringing on religion, just as it's not relevant that religious people feel they are being infringed upon. Civil Unions, removing "marriage" from the sanction of government altogether, takes care of that. It's no longer a part of the debate, and the issue is resolved.
And? This again has nothing to do with the topic at hand which was a poor attempt to analogize pork and marriage and the banning of pork entirely being the same thing as banning all marriage.
Do you understand? This is about banning all marriage, not just gay marriage. Either take reading comprehension courses, or stop talking.
You and I agree, banning gay marriage is a bad thing. But it does not equate to banning all marriage in any way.
The topic that started all of this was simply taking marriage out of the government's power altogether and leaving it to the churches. Hence "banning" the government from defining marriage. This would be more effectively like a First Amendment type of a law banning the government from making laws respecting marriage at all. Let them make contracts, but get them out of defining our religions and their practices.
Stop relating every topic to this one personal situation, it doesn't make for good conversation nor does it advance the topic at hand.
Again, I am with you on the resolution, I just take exception to the idea that Banning Same Sex Marriage interfears with anyone's freedom to express there own particular religen. This is a political discussion board, so fine little points are open for discussion. That is the entire point of this cite.
Again, I am talking about banning a certian type of food because it offends a religous group. Just like banning a certian type of marriage because it offends a certian religous group. Sure you can take the analogy and expand it so it does not fit, but for my limited purpose it works. All I am saying with teh analogy is that by banning gay marriage you are trying to impose your will on another person's belife system. There are religous groups that feel gay marriage is a perfectly acceptable way to organize your life, and is an accepted form of marriage.
How would banning this practice be anything but prohibiting there ability to freely exersize there religen? Dixie on the other hand said that not banning gay marriage infringes on some religen's ability to freely exersize there religen, I dont see how. Unless it is part of the religen to practice authoritarian dominance over others religous belifes.
No its just because I want to discuss political pholosophy and debate it. Thats what this cite is about.
The point is, if the government is going to sanction marriage, they should allow gay marriage. Some religens reconise it, so not sanctioning it would be prohibiting them from free exersize, not the other way around.
Again, you are talking about banning it (pork) for everybody, not for a certain group.
It's silly and the analogy fails because of this.
Nobody at all spoke of denying marriage to everybody wholesale, at all, anywhere. Denying pork to everybody wholesale is not analogous to denying one small group something however much you disagree with the ban.
Pork = Marriage in your analogy, you stated so. Nobody has ever argued to disallow all marriage. Therefore the analogy fails miserably as it is misapplied.
No they are banning Gay Marriage for everyone. When you ban pork, you are banning it even for those who dont like pork. It is still banned.
If I said Pork = Marriage, I was wrong, Pork = gay marriage.
I can see what you are trying, however if the government sanctioned the consumption of pork for some but denied it for others then you would have an analogy that worked.
Instead you are trying to make a blanket ban match up with one that is not.
You said that pork, in your instance, equated to marriage. You did not say it equated to solely homosexual marriage.
Nobody is talking about banning all marriage. Because you thought you were "clever" you make your analogy too broad and then attempt to argue a way that made it fit.
If you argue this way for your clients I can see why you believe you will lose trials.
Nobody has argued that all marriage should be banned. In the thread where your sudden "epiphany of cleverness" came upon you, they were arguing against the government having any involvement, not of making it illegal.
Go back and study the origional thread, I agree the government should get out of the business of marriage all together. I was argueing that to ban gay marriage, because allowing it was an unconsitutional restriction on someones right to practice there religen, was absurd. In fact the truth is opposit. It is akin to saying that allowing people to eat pork is an unconstitutional restrction on the rights of Jews.
partnerships between adults should not be restricted
incest is foolish to say the least, but if people are to be free to make their own decisions...and suffer the consequences
otoh, what about incest without conception
is it not time to get over passing laws for individuals own good based on preconceived ideas - is the state to become big mama as well as big brother
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I never said it restricted people from practicing their religion. It abridges their right to freely practice their religious beliefs. There is a difference. Part of the religion is the holy matrimony of men and women, it is the foundation for family in the Christian church, as well as many other religions. By involving the state in sanctioning this particular institution based on attributes not in accordance with these religious beliefs, is an abridgment of their right to maintain the practice in a sanctified manner. Analogies presented are valid... Like if the government said food companies could label pork as "kosher" and sell it. This would contradict the Jewish criteria for what "kosher" means... it doesn't matter that a lot of people might like to buy "kosher pork" and it would help the economy! It doesn't matter that Jews wouldn't be forced to eat the "kosher pork" being sold in every store! It is the fact that it infringes and abridges their right to freely practice their religious beliefs.
actually, i do advocate that government should stay out of the marriage business and limit itself to civil unions which would be available to two or more consenting adults and would provide the restrictions and benefits now applied to marriages, but would call them civil unions and leave 'marriage' to those organizations that wish to 'marry' people