What you've described is the protection of people. Social Services taking a child from "bad" parents is a matter of protection. Same goes with Sexual harassment and racism being illegal.

On the other hand, Bribery and Corruption are things that are to protect the establishments of society, and ensuring their smooth running.

Regulating that, for example, homosexuals cannot marry - which is neither of these - is a matter of legislating what is "right" and what is "wrong". The government have no place.

but at the same time the government represent the people, particularly in a democracy but it can equally be found in extremely nationalistic countries like North Korea where Kim Jong Il is forced into them as the epitome of PRNK.

as we all know, civilisation cannot exist without society and society cannot exist with civilisation. if the government of a society represents that society then would that not result in a government sticking its nose into morality, morality which is generally governed not just by individuals but by society and culture.

ie. sparta. placing toddlers on a frozen mountain being told to survive or die is not morally acceptable in many places but is morally acceptable there. the ruling party over sparta at the time allowed such practice to go on.

certain tribes in africa cut the clitoris off women at puberty. again, not morally acceptable in many cultures but in their society it was perfectly normal, the elder women help force their children into it.

circumcision, the removal of some skin that obviously causes pain in babies, perhaps not morally acceptable in sparta or certain tribes in africa but for the jewish as well as others it is a custom held in high regards.

all of these examples have the societies ruling body sticking its nose into their business. because quite frankly, the government generally is the figurehead or the epitome of the current society, otherwise it would be shortly overthrown or forced to conform to the societies moral prejudices.

the thing with democracy is that it is all about popularity. a move to legalise homosexuality in an area of opposition means political suicide. some states do allow same sex marriage and you can see that they are the more liberal states.

until society can dictate to the government that same sex marriage is right and that keeping it illegal is wrong then there will be no change. you cant blame the government for a problem dictated by the people. for a problem that the people have sufficient power to remove. for a problem that the people dont mind staying a problem.

-Ducky

The government represent the people, yes. But allowing the majority full control over the rights of the minority is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner.



I agree with your first point (Spartan one) - but these two have no moral weighting, I don't think a society would see these as "wrong" to do morally, just something that's not done. Or even unheard of. Apologies if you were trying to use the analogy to show something else than I understood.



All three examples represented a tradition, not a ruling-power enforcing it onto the people.



Yes, Democracy is all about popularity. Which is one of it's flaws. Politicians do and promise what the people think is right for them, but not what the politicians think is right for the people. However, I dont see how this effects the fact that governments shouldn't legislate morality.



Not the point. Anti-Same-Sex Marriage laws are not a protective law. They're restrictive ones.

So you are basically arguing that it is ok for the government to protect people, and society, but not to protect societal institutions?

Again, nobody is telling homosexuals what is "right" and what is "wrong." The Government is telling EVERYBODY that the institution of marriage, as defined by the United States is defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman.

How come the "marriage equality" movement is not arguing or working for the rights of 1 woman to marry multiple men? Why are they not arguing for the rights of 1 man to marry multiple women? Why are they not arguing for the rights of a person to marry their dead fiance?

BTW: As a side note, the government also defines and sets the rules for what is a religion and what is a cult. The practical application of this is things such as the Waco Texas incident. If the government did not have the right to define societal institutions such as "a religion", then the government would not have been allowed to get involved with David Koresh and the Waco Branch Davidians.



Do you have any good evidence for that statement? Technically, not being allowed to spank your child is also a "restrictive law."

Regulated freedom is still not freedom. It's like putting someone in a really big cell and saying they are free because they have no handcuffs on.

Like previously mentioned, The Patriot Act destroyed whatever imaginary freedom Americans had. Freedom of Speech no longer exists, either.



Same-sex marriage, seriously? What is the point? Marriage has always been the society's way to "justify" reproduction. Let's face the facts, marriage means nothing. And, if you have in mind that marriage is the society's way of justification, how can marriage between the same sex justify anything?

Nothing changes. Homosexuality is a disease, treat it, not endorse it. Call me cruel for saying that, but I would not like to see my future children grow up in a society where men kiss each other in public. Would you?


Next time homosexuals lobby to allow same-sex marriage, they should think of the effect this has on the society.

Tell me how anything i've said would harm one of society's institutions.



By restricting "marriage" to certain criteria is calling right and wrong. The law represents, or rather - should represent - the rights and wrong of the society in which it's in.


Personally, I have no problem with polygamy. See "two or more consenting adults" earlier.



Well, yes they would. In the government's duties to protect. The Government have no place in Religion, and Religion has no place in government.



Not being able to inflict Physical Pain on your child is a protective law. Unless you have some way of proving that someone or something is somehow harmed by the allowing of same-sex "marriage"

Note, again: I'm using marriage as a "civil partnership" - see my earlier post.




@HellScream:
Evidence that same-sex marriage is derogatory to either society or people, please.

the effect is that prejudice bigots feel the need to bring back lynching?

the effect that the rest of society that arent prejudice bigots have notions that individual rights are being protected in the grand scheme of things.



respect for you = -1 for calling homosexuality a disease. stupid is alright, blatant ignorance is intolerable

as for i think it was steven pointing out how the majority can eat the minority, there is a constution that results in people being bound and prosecutable by law as it protects the interests of the minority.

and daganev. DONT USE MY COLOUR D : <

Words are only defined by their common usage. Even if gay "marriage" is not legislated by law, if people use the phrase "marriage" to describe a ceremony between two people, or two or more people, or whatever. Then that is what it will "begin" to mean. Words aren't objective. They change.

Example: Marriage originally was defined as A ceremony between a man and a woman of the same race. (Before race marriage laws were lifted).



The first is a false analogy. Corporate bodies "merging" is different to a "marriage" ceremony between people. Although, to an extent, the word is used in that context, in some cases. (I have heard it used, I don't think it's very widespread, though).

The Second is an interesting point, however I'm still of the opinion that "Marriage" is whatever they want to make of it. If they really want to do that, go ahead. I'm not going to stop them. I don't see it happening, though. (Also note: As a brit, I'm unfamiliar with the terms fraternity and sorority, if I've misinterpreted what you meant, I apologise.)

The third, again, is a false analogy. "marriage" is done between two or more people because, quite simply, it's a contract. You can't sign a contract with yourself. and even if you could, what use would hospital visitation rights, will rights and so on be if you're the one in hospital or dead.


As I explained earlier, words change their meaning. To bring up a related word: Gay. Gay originally meant happy or cheery - and to this day you still have people, and pieces of literature - however, the general connotation today with the word "gay" is that of the person being called gay is a homosexual. If words don't change and adapt to circumstances (Not saying that the progression of the word "gay" is a good adaption, nonetheless) then languages just die out.


Great. Again, we can have the same argument for polygamy as I have done for same-sex marriage, and we still won't agree. We have entirely different cultures, and I accept that.



If a religion starts harming their members, I hope they infringe on it, if they don't... well. Also, the process of choosing what is a cult or sect and what is a religion is a very subjective one, with lines drawn in sand. Particularly as it's a decision made by a human. Who, by nature, has their own prejudices and ideals.



Sure. I accepted that. It protects by restricting a parent's choices.

The simple fact of the matter is, it won't be harmful to allow same-sex marriage. People suddenly start turning homosexual when they see marriage is allowed, neither will it "destroy the institution of marriage" (besides, a religious group can still give out a marriage to anyone they want, regardless. The only change is the legality of it, whether you want to give same-sex couples the rights to hospital visitation, wills et cetera.

If I haven't said it already. Stopping same-sex couples from marrying does not prevent homosexuals from loving, living together and engaging in sexual activities. - The only reason there are more homosexuals now than there was 40 years ago is because it's more socially acceptable now, the homosexuals can be openly homosexual without social stigma, or even criminal punishments (R.I.P. Alan Turing.)



Slippery slope argument. No evidence to support the existance of a slippery slope in any case, especially this one. However, yes. Society's views, and therefore the laws, on marriage will change. But that's not a problem, because society's attitude is obviously driving the change.



Appeal to Tradition. Some society's in the past didn't allow inter-racial marriage, or inter-caste marriage.



You mean, million, right? $51.4 million in 2003 (From your source).

Anyway, this is irrelevant. Popular causes raise a lot of money.

There is nothing "slippery slope" about my arguments.

I am not saying "Oh no, this might happen is such and such happens, therefore we can't allow it to happen."

What I am arguing is that the people who want "marriage equality" are a bunch of hypocritical polygamphobes. What I am saying, is that I want anybody and everybody's new usage of the word "marriage" to be allowed and legalized and recognized. Just because you don't know many people who use the word in the ways I described, doesn't give you a right to declare that such things are not allowed. After all, who are you to tell other people how they define their contracts and relationships? (A person can write a contract to themselves by the way. It's commonly called a personal oath or vow)

Btw, Marriage NEVER meant "a union between a man and a woman of the same race." That might have been the law, but that was never the meaning of the institution. Just as "Polygamy" is the marriage between 1 man and multiple women EVEN THOUGH it's not legal in most places. Just because it isn't legal, doesn't mean it's not marriage.

Not that it's entirely relevant but a fraternity is a group of male college students who are members of a "society",(generally they are named with 3 greek letters, such as Alpha Alpha Alpha) and a sorority is the same for females.

Why should each group of people who have unique and self-important meanings of marriage have to fight the same 20 year legal battle all over again? Just because Blacks were fighting for civil rights, didn't mean that latinos and Asians had to redo the fights over again for themselves also.

You want my support for gay marriage? Then fight for the rights of polygamists, ghost-marriages, animal marriages etc.