Iowas Decision

[micatala]

As you may have seen, the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... S/90403010

The ruling is not up for appeal, and the legislative avenue for turning this back will be difficult and time consuming, with no possibility for a voter recall until 2012.


Questions for debate:

1) How much does this bolster the case in the U.S. agains gay marriage bans?

2) Is this a blip, or a signal of the tide turning?

A couple of snippets from the judges:

Friday’s decision also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate� and said judges must remain outside the fray.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,� Cady wrote.

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.�

I will try to post a link to the full decision. As another question for debate, we could consider the quality of this decision. Is this "judicial activism run amok" or is this another "Brown versus Board of Ed" ruling in which the judiciary stands up for minority rights that the majority is unwilling to bestow?

[McCulloch]

I simply said that the Bible condones polygamy.

No it doesn't.

There are numerous examples of polygamy in the Bible, by those favored by God, yet no clear condemnation of the practice.

Since you base your opposition to gay marriage on the Bible, if you also follow the BIble's explicit statements and examples regarding polygamy, you should be OK with it.

In this debate I haven't based my case against homosexuality on the bible but if I did, the bible clearly supports my position against gay marriage, polygamy, and bestiality.

Other believers disagree with your interpretation. But since you do not base your objections on the Bible writers stated position, it is of no matter. I've lost track, why are you opposed to gay marriage?

We have been telling gays for years that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays do not have rights under that law. So basically, all a group has to do is get marriage redefined to include their little group -- I don't see a bottom to this slope.

More like, all a group has to do is to show that the opposition to the recognition of their marriages is not based on the principles of human rights and the good of society, but on religious prejudices.

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

If you want to debate why polygamy should be illegal I am fine with that. If and when we have an actual polygamists marriage movement then we can talk about slippery slopes. Until then, this is all highly hypothetical.

According to the definition of marriage you have provided it is not hypothetical, but reality. The only requirement is that they are "consenting adults".

I think that the requirement implied by micatala is that they be two consenting adults. The slippery slope is a dangerous argument to use. We should ban alcohol because heroin is bad. We should ban Christianity because of Jonestown ... Please, if you are opposed to gay marriage, show why you are opposed to gay marriage, now why you are opposed to polygamy.

At bottom, slippery slope arguments amount to "if we change law A then there is no logical reason not to change any and all other laws."

No, the law we are specifically referring to is that of marriage. The slippery slope is to define marriage as "consenting adults".

There are significant difficulties regarding the protection of rights which would have to be addressed in allowing multiple marriage that we currently have not the mechanism to address. Gay marriage, on the other hand, can be regulated with little or no change to the current legal system.

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the individuals who wish to practice it?

I suppose that we would have to allow it, if it could be done without violating anyone's human rights or endangering public health.

You were arguing that because one considers marriage a religious right [rite?] they are justified to do so under the freedom of religion.

Right!

Following your "slippery slope argument", allowing churches to seal a marriage contract means we have to also allow churches to seal real estate sales, stock transactions, employment contracts between employers and employees, labor deals, financial aid agreements between colleges and students, etc., etc. If churches have the capacity to legally determine if and when two people form this contract, we must therefore allow them to determine the formation of any other contract as well.

Would this be your position?

No.

Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps you could explain why not, it is not evident.

Imposing a religious teaching as the law of the land for everyone to follow violates freedom of religion, unless one can show there is a legitimate secular purpose to the law. We prohibit murder and stealing because such prohibitions have a legitimate secular purpose and foster a well-functioning civil society.

What would that legitimate secular purpose be, if it is indeed legitimate? How does bestiality, object sexuality, or cannibalism hurt the "well-functioning" civil collective?

Since animals cannot give informed consent, bestiality amounts to animal cruelty.

As far as I know, object sexuality is not illegal, nor should it be. I do not think that cannibalism could be practiced in a healthy way that protects the rights of all.

If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

We don't base laws on your opinion. To influence lawmakers, you should have something more than opinion. Do you have any evidence that same sex marriages do not foster a well functioning society?

Having strong families is a good thing for societies, I agree. However, you are rather wrong about one man one woman marriage always being traditional. As noted above, marriage was not defined as such traditionally in the Bible.

Yes it was.

Thank you again for such clear answers. But I have a small quibble. You seem to have left out everything except a bald assertion.

Furthermore, what fosters a well-functioning society is not or at least should not determined by the whims of opinion in a reasonable society. If you could show that gay marriage presents more of a danger to a well-functioning society than other freedoms which we do allow, then you might have a case.

Assuming everyone has the same idea of a "well-functioning society" and what constitutes a "reasonable society".

How about "well functioning society" is one where the members have the greatest liberty and safety where their rights are protected. Reasonable, based on objective reason.

I have shown that redefining marriage to include gays is a slippery slope, and ultimately dangerous for traditional families and values. Redefining anything to accommodate a vocal minority (or majority for that matter) is extremely dangerous for any society.

That's right, allowing interracial marriages and marriages between those of different classes or castes was a slippery slope which was ultimately dangerous for traditional families. It led to the examination of the rights of gays to marriage which might lead to the examination of the rights of polygamists, sex slavers, bestiality, cannibalism, hedonism and human sacrifice.

[OpenedUp]

I simply said that the Bible condones polygamy.

No it doesn't.

Well that's weird, cause a lot of people in the Bible practiced it. The weird thing is that God doesn't seem to condemn ANY of them for it. In fact, he even gave some of them extra wives...


Genesis 4:19
Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah

Genesis 26:34
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
(and he later takes another wife)

Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels

Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2
Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:
And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

2 Samuel 12:7-8 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

2 Chronicles 11:21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)


Here's a law about what you should do if you take another wife:
Exodus 21:10-
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

[McCulloch]

I find it ironic that some Christians use the slippery slope argument against recognizing same sex marriage. If you allow same sex marriage, a practice that seems to be condemned in the Bible, it might lead to polygamy, a practice that has numerous examples in the Bible and no outright condemnation.

[Cathar1950]

I find it ironic that some Christians use the slippery slope argument against recognizing same sex marriage. If you allow same sex marriage, a practice that seems to be condemned in the Bible, it might lead to polygamy, a practice that has numerous examples in the Bible and no outright condemnation.

Of course it is a social construct.
I was just reading about wives having more then on husband in some ancient cultures and in royalty marriage between brother-sister and mother-son were practical. The relationship between two unrelated man and a woman is a social construct and not written in stone.

[Fisherking]

I simply said that the Bible condones polygamy.

No it doesn't.

There are numerous examples of polygamy in the Bible, by those favored by God, yet no clear condemnation of the practice.

con·done
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈd�n\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·doned; con·don·ing
Etymology: Latin condonare to absolve, from com- + donare to give — more at donation
Date: 1805
: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics>

Assuming polygamy is something bad or blameworthy, I guess I would be wrong in saying it is not condoned by God. Whether or not God treats the behavior as acceptable or harmless is debatable, and it's definitely forgivable if it is not acceptable or harmless behavior.

We have been telling gays for years that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gays do not have rights under that law. So basically, all a group has to do is get marriage redefined to include their little group -- I don't see a bottom to this slope.

More like, all a group has to do is to show that the opposition to the recognition of their marriages is not based on the principles of human rights and the good of society, but on religious prejudices.

How does opposing the redifinition of marriage (to include the same sex) infringe on human rights and a good society?

Why stop at gay marriage?

Marriage is a civil contact between consenting adults.

Many believe marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. Why should we accept such a broad definition that could include 2 women and 1 man, 3 men, 6 men and one woman, 17 women a 5 men, or 70 virgins and 1 man? Talk about a slippery slope...

If you want to debate why polygamy should be illegal I am fine with that. If and when we have an actual polygamists marriage movement then we can talk about slippery slopes. Until then, this is all highly hypothetical.

According to the definition of marriage you have provided it is not hypothetical, but reality. The only requirement is that they are "consenting adults".

I think that the requirement implied by micatala is that they be two consenting adults. The slippery slope is a dangerous argument to use.

If that is implied, why? Is there discrimination taking place against the poor downtrodden groups I cited above?

We should ban alcohol because heroin is bad. We should ban Christianity because of Jonestown ... Please, if you are opposed to gay marriage, show why you are opposed to gay marriage, now why you are opposed to polygamy.

Again, this is another misrepresentation of what I am saying and more false analogies. I am not saying because homosexuality is bad we should ban marriage, or that we should ban marriage because of Jeffrey Dahmer.
The slippery slope is defining marriage so broad that it can include any and all sexual perversion.

Those adults who choose to do so may consider marriage a religious rite as well. This is called freedom of religion.

Adults who choose to do so could consider anything under the sun a religious right. Cannibalism is a religious right in some areas, should we legalize it also for the individuals who wish to practice it?

I suppose that we would have to allow it, if it could be done without violating anyone's human rights or endangering public health.

So in your opinion everything goes as long as it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health? This has been the basic question all along that nobody seems to want to answer. I've asked multiple times what is wrong with marrying a goat (or donkey) and if any of the gay marriage supporters would also support beast/man/woman marriages? If it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health it's just fine, right?

Following your "slippery slope argument", allowing churches to seal a marriage contract means we have to also allow churches to seal real estate sales, stock transactions, employment contracts between employers and employees, labor deals, financial aid agreements between colleges and students, etc., etc. If churches have the capacity to legally determine if and when two people form this contract, we must therefore allow them to determine the formation of any other contract as well.

Would this be your position?

No.

Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps you could explain why not, it is not evident.

I have, multiple times.

If not, why not? Why allow these practices that are contrary to Biblical teaching and yet advocate banning gay marriage?

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman(as it has always traditionally been). In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

We don't base laws on your opinion. To influence lawmakers, you should have something more than opinion. Do you have any evidence that same sex marriages do not foster a well functioning society?

I would think a healthy society would contribute to a well functioning society:A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation
Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System Surveys
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Having strong families is a good thing for societies, I agree. However, you are rather wrong about one man one woman marriage always being traditional. As noted above, marriage was not defined as such traditionally in the Bible.

Yes it was.

Thank you again for such clear answers. But I have a small quibble. You seem to have left out everything except a bald assertion

One bald assertion in reply to another

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an(female, singular) help meet for him...
...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)."(Gen)

That's about as far back as we can go "traditionally".

Furthermore, what fosters a well-functioning society is not or at least should not determined by the whims of opinion in a reasonable society. If you could show that gay marriage presents more of a danger to a well-functioning society than other freedoms which we do allow, then you might have a case.

Assuming everyone has the same idea of a "well-functioning society" and what constitutes a "reasonable society".

How about "well functioning society" is one where the members have the greatest liberty and safety where their rights are protected. Reasonable, based on objective reason.

What the greatest liberty and safety is, or what rights should be rights and which ones should be protected is not objective.

I have shown that redefining marriage to include gays is a slippery slope, and ultimately dangerous for traditional families and values. Redefining anything to accommodate a vocal minority (or majority for that matter) is extremely dangerous for any society.

That's right, allowing interracial marriages and marriages between those of different classes or castes was a slippery slope.

Another strawman. I defined a traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their race or social status is not addressed.

[McCulloch]

How does opposing the redefinition of marriage (to include the same sex) infringe on human rights and a good society?

There are no reasons, other than the religious bias of people not involved, to prohibit a same sex couple from marrying. Therefore, opposing the extension of marriage to include same sex is opposing the human rights of those individuals.

Is there discrimination taking place against the poor downtrodden groups [polygamists et al] I cited above?

The case for or against polygamists etcetera should be made on their own merits just as the case for and against same sex couples. I don't see why you insist on joining them.

The slippery slope is defining marriage so broad that it can include any and all sexual perversion.

By what authority do you decide which sexual activities are perversions?

So in your opinion everything goes as long as it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health? This has been the basic question all along that nobody seems to want to answer. I've asked multiple times what is wrong with marrying a goat (or donkey) and if any of the gay marriage supporters would also support beast/man/woman marriages? If it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health it's just fine, right?

Or the rights of the participants, in the case of the goat or donkey. Donkeys, like children, are deemed to be not capable of providing informed consent.

I advocate defining marriage as between one man and one woman (as it has always traditionally been).

Has this always traditionally been?

In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

We don't base laws on your opinion. To influence lawmakers, you should have something more than opinion. Do you have any evidence that same sex marriages do not foster a well functioning society?

I would think a healthy society would contribute to a well functioning society:A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation
Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System Surveys
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Oh, so you are one of those government big brother advocates who believe that potentially dangerous behaviors should be prohibited by regulation? Should we ban by law, promiscuous behavior too?

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an(female, singular) help meet for him...
...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)."(Gen)

That's about as far back as we can go "traditionally".

I knew that it would get back to your personal religious values.

What the greatest liberty and safety is, or what rights should be rights and which ones should be protected is not objective.

Yes, life and politics are messy and fuzzy. Can you show how your liberty and safety are threatened by allowing same sex couples to marry?

Another strawman. I defined a traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their race or social status is not addressed.

Yes, but you are defending the gender restriction on the basis of tradition. Race and class restrictions on marriage are also traditional. You seem to be selective of which traditions you wish to inflict on our societies and which traditions you are willing to disband.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 6 Post 55:

How does opposing the redifinition of marriage (to include the same sex) infringe on human rights and a good society?

It infringes on the rights of homosexuals to marry according to who they choose to marry. It classifies one group of people as somehow more worthy than another.

The rights of married couples are varied and quantifiable, hospital visitation among them. Can we not consider it a harm when a person is in the hospital and the person they love has access restricted?

The slippery slope is defining marriage so broad that it can include any and all sexual perversion.

Why should marriage be considered based solely on sex?

Shouldn't love be in there somewhere?

So in your opinion everything goes as long as it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health? This has been the basic question all along that nobody seems to want to answer.

It has been answered several times.

Please reread the OP. The subject is gay marriage, not the many red herrings you keep trying to employ.

I've asked multiple times what is wrong with marrying a goat (or donkey) and if any of the gay marriage supporters would also support beast/man/woman marriages?

Contrary to Biblical claims, goats or donkeys have not been shown to speak (or write), therefore they are incapable of giving consent.

Again, this is your red herring, the OP does not advocate this.

I asked before, are you aware of any group of homosexuals advocating for bestiality?

If it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health it's just fine, right?

Why shouldn't it be?

Do we want to live in a free society, or do we want to restrict what consenting adults can do?

>link to surveys and other gay health issues<

Disease will occur among the more promiscuous in any sexual relationship. That homosexuals want to engage in monogamous (or not) marriages would help here, wouldn't it?

As to homosexual mental health issues, it is my contention most of such is caused by the prejudices, discrimination, and bullying such folks face.

"And the LORD God said...

Hold up on that car wash gentlemen.

Realizing the response is to a biblical reference, has it been established this god exists, and said anything you quote for this god?

What the greatest liberty and safety is, or what rights should be rights and which ones should be protected is not objective.

Agreed. I contend we must all assert our rights anytime we feel they are being infringed. As such, seems homosexuals are becoming more vocal in demand their's quit being suppressed.

That's right, allowing interracial marriages and marriages between those of different classes or castes was a slippery slope.

Another strawman. I defined a traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their race or social status is not addressed.

How is this different from your arguments about bestiality and such?

Where the OP "defines" the topic for debate to be gay marriage you seem adamant in framing the debate on issues the OP has not mentioned or advocated.

[Fisherking]

How does opposing the redefinition of marriage (to include the same sex) infringe on human rights and a good society?

There are no reasons, other than the religious bias of people not involved, to prohibit a same sex couple from marrying. Therefore, opposing the extension of marriage to include same sex is opposing the human rights of those individuals.

It appears you hold the opinion that gay marriage is a human right. I would disagree -- marriage is a priviledge granted to heterosexual men and heterosexual women. Homosexual men and women do not have priviledges to enter that "clubhouse" any more than I have entering a women's locker room.

The slippery slope is defining marriage so broad that it can include any and all sexual perversion.

By what authority do you decide which sexual activities are perversions?

As a Christian, my God has the authority to decide.
As someone non-religious, it would simply be the majority. (which I believe is still against gay marriage).

So in your opinion everything goes as long as it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health? This has been the basic question all along that nobody seems to want to answer. I've asked multiple times what is wrong with marrying a goat (or donkey) and if any of the gay marriage supporters would also support beast/man/woman marriages? If it doesn't violate your version of human rights or endanger public health it's just fine, right?

Or the rights of the participants, in the case of the goat or donkey. Donkeys, like children, are deemed to be not capable of providing informed consent.

So all the bestialists would have to do is change the meaning of informed and consent to include whatever behavior deemed informing and consenting by the bestialists, right?

In my opinion traditional marriage is the best way to "foster a well-functioning" society.

We don't base laws on your opinion. To influence lawmakers, you should have something more than opinion. Do you have any evidence that same sex marriages do not foster a well functioning society?

I would think a healthy society would contribute to a well functioning society:A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation
Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System Surveys
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Oh, so ....[insert random fallacy or rabbit trail here]

Either you believe a healthy society is a well functioning society or you do not.
Which is it?

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an(female, singular) help meet for him...
...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)."(Gen)

That's about as far back as we can go "traditionally".

I knew that it would get back to your personal religious values.

Shame shame McCulloch, my personal religious values were not the topic of this exchange. We were arguing whether or not marriage was traditionally defined in the bible:

Having strong families is a good thing for societies, I agree. However, you are rather wrong about one man one woman marriage always being traditional. As noted above, marriage was not defined as such traditionally in the Bible.

Yes it was.

Thank you again for such clear answers. But I have a small quibble. You seem to have left out everything except a bald assertion

One bald assertion in reply to another
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an(female, singular) help meet for him...
...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)."(Gen)

That's about as far back as we can go "traditionally".

Another strawman. I defined a traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their race or social status is not addressed.

Yes, but you are defending the gender restriction on the basis of tradition. Race and class restrictions on marriage are also traditional. You seem to be selective of which traditions you wish to inflict on our societies and which traditions you are willing to disband.

What in "...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)." addresses race and class distinctions?

[McCulloch]

It appears you hold the opinion that gay marriage is a human right. I would disagree -- marriage is a priviledge granted to heterosexual men and heterosexual women. Homosexual men and women do not have priviledges to enter that "clubhouse" any more than I have entering a women's locker room.

Close but not quite. I hold that the relevant human rights are that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all their society's rights and freedoms without distinction. If our society is to recognize marriage, then such recognition should not be arbitrarily withheld from gays.

The slippery slope is defining marriage so broad that it can include any and all sexual perversion.

By what authority do you decide which sexual activities are perversions?

As a Christian, my God has the authority to decide.
As someone non-religious, it would simply be the majority. (which I believe is still against gay marriage).

I guess you failed high school civics.

1. In the West, we don't base legislation on what your or anyone else's particular God is said to have decided.
2. The majority does not decide who does and does not have their rights protected. That is why you have your Bill of Rights and we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So all the bestialists would have to do is change the meaning of informed and consent to include whatever behavior deemed informing and consenting by the bestialists, right?

Still off topic, but yes, if they could convince the justices in the courts that a donkey met the legal requirements of informed consent, then it would be allowed.

Another strawman. I defined a traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Their race or social status is not addressed.

Yes, but you are defending the gender restriction on the basis of tradition. Race and class restrictions on marriage are also traditional. You seem to be selective of which traditions you wish to inflict on our societies and which traditions you are willing to disband.

What in "...Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(female, singular), and shall cleave unto his wife(female, singular): and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife(female, singular)." addresses race and class distinctions?

No, I am challenging your selective reading of the Bible as the sole definition of what constitutes a traditional marriage. Did not Jacob have a traditional marriage? Is not concubinage traditional biblically? What about traditional Islamic or Polynesian marriages? What about the traditions of the Middle ages Europe? Why are you not proposing traditional Hindu marriage?
My point is that tradition is insufficient reason to legislate. Traditions change. Yet, you seem to want to hold to one particular tradition with regard to marriage, impost it on others who do not hold to that tradition but ignore many other traditions which are also ancient and well established. Why?

[JoeyKnothead]

I seem to be being ignored here. I notice many of the more fundamentalist type theists on this forum prefer to ignore my arguments than to try to address them.

I take such to mean they have no way to refute my position.