|
Post by Tar A on Feb 4, 2004 22:25:15 GMT -5
(Dilemma #32) - "One Wife is Never Enough, Say Polygamists" The IssueA small religious group is lobbying the government to allow them to take multiple wives. The Debate- Option 1: "It's about time we had our religious rights recognized," says Violet Steele, a devout member of a faith that is never made quite clear. "Who is the government to tell me I can't love more than one woman? The government doesn't know how much of me there is to go around!"
- Option 2: "This is nothing more than sexual deviants using religion as a pretext for perversion!" says Reverend Melbourne O'Bannon. "Marriage is one man, one woman, and death do we part. What's so hard to get? Anything else is a perversion, and must be banned."
- Option 3: "Multiple wives? Excellent!" says passer-by Thomas Barry. "Presumably we will allow multiple husbands, as well. And gay marriages, of course. In fact, now is probably the time for the government to butt out of marriage altogether. Let people marry their cats, if they want."
w00t for the dismissination.
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Feb 4, 2004 23:04:11 GMT -5
I said it on the last issue and I'll say it in this one. Churcha and state should be seperate. Option 3.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Feb 5, 2004 9:00:31 GMT -5
And I say there is a difference between the civil marriages sanctioned by the state and the sacrament of marriage as practiced by religions.
The state creates unions. Religions have sacraments. They are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by Azerbaijanistanialand on Feb 5, 2004 12:19:21 GMT -5
And the conservative Catholic voted for number 2 . . .
|
|
|
Post by Lactating Nuns on Feb 5, 2004 12:44:34 GMT -5
I just want to say thank you for the dismiss option, even though I didn't use it.
Too bad this issue doesn't separate the religious aspect from the state aspect of marriage. I personally don't think a govt has any business interfering with religious customs, unless they're blatantly criminal. On the other hand, the govt is not only entitled but obligated to set the terms of civil unions, in terms of benefits and tax implications.
If the difference had been made clear, I might have voted something other than option 3.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Feb 5, 2004 12:50:07 GMT -5
Option 3 for me. Hey, some cats are sexy...
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Feb 6, 2004 1:39:39 GMT -5
NS issues most always make you choose between some kind of extremes, where you just want to kill both parties who are speaking in the issue. I would choose the first issue, but the way the guy says that just creeps me out. What a wanker.
Anyway, Option three it is.
|
|
|
Post by The Godly El Sabah Nur on Feb 6, 2004 11:10:29 GMT -5
Option three was chosen? You're all damned hippies!
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Feb 6, 2004 11:23:13 GMT -5
Well sometimes a fisherman gets lonely, and all he has are.....well, fish. Why not allow him to bless the unity?
|
|