DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: fatman on November 18, 2008, 07:56:43 AM
-
California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us
By Kermit Roosevelt Kermit Roosevelt – Fri Nov 14, 3:00
Philadelphia – What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."
This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?
It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.
American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.
Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.
Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.
Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.
As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.
If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.
Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.
It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.
But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.
It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.
As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.
This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.
Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.
CS Monitor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081114/cm_csm/yroosevelt;_ylt=AlkZ5eM00.2VD3UqALliIu39wxIF)
-
The majority of the voters of 1950's Alabama, Mississippi and many other Southern states would have gladly and enthusiastically voted in favor of segregation and separate but equal as well as against mixed marriage and restrictive covenants on housing.
Democracy advocates majority privilege, but also protects minority rights. I don't see where the anti-gay amendments are valid, since again, allowing gay people to marry does not harm in any way anyone else.
-
Too bad this isn't a Civil Rights issue, like segregation was
-
Too bad this isn't a Civil Rights issue, like segregation was
I'm going to have to disagree here. I think it is a Civil Rights issue.
The problem is marketing.
You have Knute selling the anti 8 and plane selling the pro 8 .
Who are you going to listen to?
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Bt. As soon as you try to make it a Civil Rights issue, the debate is over. Who does support segregation? Who does support seperate water fountains? Civil Rights are issues that have no defense against them, since they are in large part racist, based on no more than a person's skin pigment or gender......aspects a person has no control or choice over.
This is NOT, until someone can produce for me some scientific data, this remains a moral/cultural issue
-
Too bad this isn't a Civil Rights issue, like segregation was
If it isn't a moral issue or a cultural issue, what is it?
Do gay people have or not have the same rights?
Are gay people a part of our culture or aren't they?
Your only defense is a book of an ancient religion, which states that gays should be stoned to death.
-
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do.
-
The Supreme Court has already determined that marriage is a civil right in Loving vs Virginia which allowed for interracial marriage.
What the court did not do is define the term marriage.
What they said was that x man could marry y woman .
In that case the definition of man, woman and marriage was not in dispute.
In the gay marriage issue the definition of marriage is in dispute.
I guess this might fall into the category of what is a protected religion.
-
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do.
Wrong.
You can marry, and without a will your wife will inherit your estate if you die before her.
If you are in critical condition in the hospital, your spouse can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated.
In most states, homosexual partners have to make out a will and/or get a power of attorney in order for their chosen partner to inherit their esatate, or make medical decisions for them, or in some cases, even visit them in the hospital if they are in critical condition (when most hospitals limit visits to members of the family only). They can make arrangements to allow these things, at extra cost to themselves and their partners. Consider that years ago, blacks could vote, but in many cases had to pay a poll tax for that right that everyone else took for granted. How is forcing same-gender couples to go through the extra hoops and pay the extra fees for the same rights as married couples any different?
-
This has become a real dichotomy because one would have expected that the liberating tendencies would have carried through to the gay population.
As far back as we can go, we have discriminated (or been) against other human beings. In Great Britain, the Scots were not considered civilized and referred to as barbarians with no voice.
Blacks were slaves and women no more than chattel for their husbands. Over time we have relaxed the premise that we (Anglo) are better, smarter and more entitled to our 'freedoms.'
In doing so we have launched a massive discriminatory voice in 1. Black females, and Hispanic females (though not to the degree of Black females). These feelings seem to be based on religious beliefs.
It would appear that while many have fought for their own rights and beliefs, they are not willing to allow others the same freedoms.
If you believe that we will answer to God at our end of days, why would you want to interfer?
This country was populated by people that wanted religious freedom that was not dictated by the Government and we got it. Yet when we don't think the people are living in a Godly manner, we demand that the government intercedes.
Strange
-
Too bad this isn't a Civil Rights issue, like segregation was
If it isn't a moral issue or a cultural issue, what is it?
Is someone having reading comprehension issues again? It IS a moral/cultural issue, NOT a Civil Rights issue
::)
Your only defense is a book of an ancient religion, which states that gays should be stoned to death.
And that fact there's scientific proof that can be pointed to in regards to gender & skin pigment. Ready to demonstrate such on sexual choices?
And, word of advice, drop the stoning to death garbage. That went out long before seperate water fountains did
You ready to answer Bt's question now?
-
This author seems content with the idea that minoritys will consistantly be wiser than the majority.
I see that as half true .
In any population there will be a median and a set smaller than the majority that is above the median, but it is equally true that there will be a subset smaller than the majority less blessed with wisdom than the median.
How can it be determined that the subset takeing action is the more wise minority and not the less?
Because they are Judges?
I don't think that is suffecient .
Judges are uniformly better educated than the median , and generally tested for temprement by requirements of seniority, but nothing involved in becomeing a judge ensures that foolishness will never invade his decisions. Judges are also uniformly more obsequious to higher ups and aware of political correctness than the median too.
Even if a judges opinion could be proven objectively right , (which in this case it cannot)makeing a decision that the majority sees no justice in is not wise.
The majority can have its way if it wants it badly enough , screwing the lid onto the pressure cooker tighter doesn't reduce the threat of bursting it just means that the pressure will be greater when the burst happens.
-
....... a book of an ancient religion, which states that gays should be stoned to death.
I am not able to remember that one.
Could you tell me the chapter it is from?
-
Too bad this isn't a Civil Rights issue, like segregation was
I'm going to have to disagree here. I think it is a Civil Rights issue.
The problem is marketing.
You have Knute selling the anti 8 and plane selling the pro 8 .
Who are you going to listen to?
Yes we are disagreeing.
The definition of Marrage was always a social contract foundational to family life , we have seen the institution damaged more during our lifetimes than in all preceding centuries since the idea came into vogue.
The inclusion of new social contracts in the definition dilutes the meaning of the word further , reduceing again the power of the ties that bind.
Eventually we will speak of the marrage of people to their parrots or their parents , do we have no civil right to marry anyone we choose? If what I really want is a marrage to my sister and brother and their horses , and they are all willing why should I have to deal with a restriction on my civil right to do so?
Multiple marrage includeing incest and homosexuality and beastiality is a pretty high hurdle , but if I approach it gradually and acheive each goal singly there is no amount of streaching to the definition I can't achieve.
Why indeed do most of the people of California want "marrage" to mean something anyway.
-
Plane - "Yes we are disagreeing.
The definition of Marrage was always a social contract foundational to family life , we have seen the institution damaged more during our lifetimes than in all preceding centuries since the idea came into vogue."
Traditional vows -
Beginning the service
Traditionally, the bride and groom enter the church separately - the groom first with the best man, and the bride at the time set for the start of the service, on the arm of her father or another relative or friend (it does not need to be a man). However, the bride may enter alone if she wishes, or the couple may enter together.
The minister will welcome the congregation. Your family and friends have an important role to play as witnesses and supporters of your marriage.
The minister will read an introduction explaining what Christians believe about marriage. He or she will also ask, as the law requires, if anyone knows any reason why the marriage may not lawfully take place.
Declarations
You will be asked to promise before God, your friends and your families, that you will love, comfort, honour and protect your partner and be faithful to them as long as you both shall live.
The minister will also ask the congregation to declare that they will support and uphold your marriage.
Vows
Turning to each other, the bride and groom take each other’s right hand and make vows:
'to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part'
Rings
The couple then exchange a ring or rings as a 'sign of their marriage' and a reminder of the vows:
'With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'
Proclamation
The minister will then declare that you are now husband and wife. The minister does not 'marry you'; you marry each other. The minister just directs you in this and then tells everyone that you have done it properly.
That said....Change Over Time in Divorce Rates
The number of divorced people in the population more than quadrupled from 4.3 million in 1970 to 18.3 million in 1996, according to a Census Bureau report on MARITAL STATUS AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS
"14% of white women who married in the 1940s eventually divorced. A single generation later, almost 50 percent of those that married in the late sixties and early seventies have already divorced. ... Between 1970 and 1992, the proportion of babies born outside of marriage leaped from 11% to 30%."
Amara Bachu, Fertility of American Women: June 1994 (Washington D.C.: Bureau of the Census, September 1995), xix, Table K. Cited on page5 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher
"According to the National Center for Health Statitics (1988: 2-5), the divorce rate rose from 2.5 per 1000 population in 1965 to 3.5 in 1970 to 4.8 in 1975."
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 15, citing National Center for Health Statistics, 1988, 2-5, cited by Thomas B. Marvell, Divorce Rates and the Fault Requirement, 23 Law & Society Review 544, n.4, (1989).
Divorce increased almost 40 percent from 1970 to 1975.
Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing Statistics from National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Cited in Kenneth Jost and Marilyn Robinson, "Children and Divorce:What can be done to help children of divorce," CQ Researcher, June 7, 1991, pp. 353, 357.
The marriage rate has fallen nearly 30% since 1970 and the divorce rate has increased about 40%.
Ahlburg and DeVita, "New Realities," 4-12. Cited on page 5 ofThe Abolition of Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher
"In America, divorce used to be difficult to obtain and, usually, impossible without good reason: adultery, abandonment, abuse, alcoholism. In 1880, according to the historian Robert L. Griswold, one marriage in 21-fewer than 5 percent-ended in divorce. Over time, there have been peaks and valleys in the divorce rate, such as the period immediately following World War II, when returning soldiers found things rather different from how they had left them, or were themselves tremendously changed by war. "But beginning in the mid-1960s," writes Griswold, the divorce rate "again began to rise dramatically, fueled by ever-higher marital expectations, a vast expansion of wives moving into the work force, the rebirth of feminism, and the adoption of 'no fault' divorce (that is, divorce granted without the need to establish wrongdoing by either party) in almost every state." Griswold continues, "The last factor, although hailed as a progressive step that would end the fraud, collusion, and acrimony that accompanied the adversarial system of divorce, has had disastrous consequences for women and children.'"[Powell, D. (2003) Divorce-on-Demand: Forget about Gay Marriage- What About the State of Regular Marriage? National Review, v55 i20. Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.]
Reconciliation after Separation
A sociology professor from Baltimore posted this citation on the FAMILYSCI listserv:
"The only statistic I have is the one cited in my marriages/families
textbook, but it may (or may not) be dated: "Approximately 10 percent of all
currently married couples (9 percent of white women and 14 percent of black
women) in the United States have separated and reconciled" (Wineberg and
McCarthy, "Separtion and reconciliation in American marriages," Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage 29, 1993: 131-46). If there's a more recent cite, I
haven't bumped across it yet."
Catholic Annulment Statistics:
"For the year 2002: of the 56,236 ordinary hearings for a declaration of
nullity, 46,092 received an affirmative sentence. Of these, 343 were handed
out in Africa, 676 in Oceania, 1,562 in Asia, 8,855 in Europe and 36,656 in
America, of which 30,968 in North America and 5,688 in Central and South
America."
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html#anchor1223885 (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html#anchor1223885)
It would appear that 1. men and women are a huge failure at marriage.
and 2. We only invoke God's law when we are prohibiting others from doing what they want.
again... strange
-
>>Wrong.<<
Let's try this again.
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do. Any man can marry any woman who is willing. Just as I can.
I have no special rights.
-
The Catholic Church takes the stand that all divorces are wrong, and that marriages can only be annulled. However, they stopped making a big deal of their opposition to divorced because they recognized they had no chance of making divorce illegal.
The opposition to gay marriages is a fall-back position, but eventually they will lose that as well.
Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of a civil right.
-
Still not going to answer the question, are you?
-
If you want to be fair to everyone, then you should support gay marriage. It harms no one if Adam marries Steve.
If you want to be against it, then you are following an antiquated religious moral code, and the part about stoning has still not been removed from the Bible. It is still there.
Maybr God will punish people for allowing Adam to marry Steve , but he would probably get you for not stoning them as well,, women not wearing a veil, wearing polyester blend clothing and a whole bunch of other wacko stuff that was once considered holy writ by all, and still is by many.
As for answering your stupid questions, no, why not just let you stay in suspense?
-
>>... However, they stopped making a big deal of their opposition to divorced ...<<
Obviously not Catholic and talking out his ass.
>>Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of a civil right.<<
More nonsense.
I am however, sure that eventually homosexuals will be getting married just like heterosexuals. It's just another example of the liberal media and the courts pounding away until they have successfully brainwashed people into excepting it.
-
they have successfully brainwashed people into excepting it.
You have your words confused.
I think people will ACCEPT gay marriage, as they should.
You want them to EXCEPT it.
These words mean nearly the opposite.
-
If you want to be fair to everyone, then you should support gay marriage. It harms no one if Adam marries Steve.
I support civil unions/domestic partnerships which can allow precisely the same rights as married heterosexuals receive. It's called a COMPROMISE, compared to the overt intolerance shared by you and like minds, on this subject
As for answering your stupid questions, no
Once again, It wasn't my stupid question. It was Bt's stupid question. Your lack of answering it though, speaks volumes. Thanks
-
Thank you spelling Nazi. Sorry, but I still can't edit posts ...
That aside, you're still wrong.
-
our lack of answering it though, speaks volumes
============
I enjoy speaking volumes. I don't think except vs. accept is a case of misspelling. Like raise and raze, it is a case of tw words that are pronounced nearly the same and mean nearly the opposite.
The only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the use of one word. I find it whimsical that you are cavalier with two words while rigidly specific about another. Most of those who vote against gay marriage do not want either civil unions or actual marriages. I imagine that if we could resurrect some ancient Hebrew prophet and inquire as to his opinion, he would agree with a total ban on any form of cohabitation. He would almost certainly disapprove of our clothing as well, as it tends to mix different fibers, and he would find a cheeseburger obscene and a ham sandwich an abomination. A ham and cheese poorboy would probably cause him to croak all over again.
As you say, we are past all that now.
Supposedly .
Fighting about how one word is ever so important, and others are trivial.
-
our lack of answering it though, speaks volumes
============
I enjoy speaking volumes.
That explains why you avoid answering a direct question. Who's "our" BTW? You, yourself and ..? Couldn't have been some typing mistake, you being all perfect in that regards
Fighting about how one word is ever so important, and others are trivial.
Who's claiming what words are trivial
-
If you want to be against it, then you are following an antiquated religious moral code, and the part about stoning has still not been removed from the Bible. It is still there.
This is embarrsing , but I can't remember that bit, could you point it out?
-
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
You will have to consult your own Bible for specifics about stoning.
-
You, yourself and ..? Couldn't have been some typing mistake, you being all perfect in that regards
No, the y of the word YOUR was truncated.
-
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
You will have to consult your own Bible for specifics about stoning.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20&version=31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20&version=31)
And there it is , thank you .
-
But that particular passage does not specifically prescribe stoning. Just killing seems to be the essential part. I suppose if not by public stoning, then maybe with knives or maybe strangulation: crucifixion was a Roman thing. The Romans always liked to do things theatrically.
Knives would suggest a sacrifice of the religious sort. Palestine is littered with stones. It is a very rocky place. There are so may stones there, that there are probably quite a few that have not killed anyone yet.
There are no stones in the Chaco Boreal of Paraguay. There executions were generally done with really long thorns. Also, some of the Indians preferred to tie their enemies down over anthills.
-
There are no stones in the Chaco Boreal of Paraguay. There executions were generally done with really long thorns. Also, some of the Indians preferred to tie their enemies down over anthills.
That is interesting, what were the capitol crimes of that culture?
-
That is interesting, what were the capitol crimes of that culture?
Trying to convert them to Christianity seems to have been rather high on the list. Occupying Indian lands, hunting in their lands, raping their women, kidnapping their young to enslave them were all rather major no-nos.
They were not a terribly advanced culture. They were famous for burying their chiefs in huge ceramic pots.
They had no stones, so they sharpened sticks for arrows and spears and hardened them in the fire.
-
That is interesting, what were the capitol crimes of that culture?
Trying to convert them to Christianity seems to have been rather high on the list. Occupying Indian lands, hunting in their lands, raping their women, kidnapping their young to enslave them were all rather major no-nos.
They were not a terribly advanced culture. They were famous for burying their chiefs in huge ceramic pots.
They had no stones, so they sharpened sticks for arrows and spears and hardened them in the fire.
Where I live is red clay , stones of good quality were a trade item for the anchient people. Stone arrowheads were imports , it can be speculated that many arrowheads were made of hard wood or bone , but few of these are found.
-
You, yourself and ..? Couldn't have been some typing mistake, you being all perfect in that regards
No, the y of the word YOUR was truncated.
*gasp*...you mean you made an error in posting, by missing the y when you copied to paste?? Say it ain't so, oh great perfect grammar/spelling nazi
-
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do. Any man can marry any woman who is willing. Just as I can.
That is a semantic argument. I can counter it with a semantic argument of equal or higher value. Heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another. And while I might technically agree that homosexuals have the same right, they do not have the same liberty under the law, which is to say the law discriminates against them. So in the sense that you are using the word "rights", no, homosexuals do not have the same rights as you. In the sense that I am using the word "right", their right is infringed by the lack of liberty. They ought to have the liberty to exercise their right. A desire to protect a definition of a word is not, imo, even close to sufficient grounds for legally preventing homosexuals from marriage. It seems, in point of fact, rather petty.
-
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do. Any man can marry any woman who is willing. Just as I can.
That is a semantic argument. I can counter it with a semantic argument of equal or higher value. Heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another.
That would again be because marriage is between a man & a woman. But I appreciate you validating my point, that this argeuemnt has little to do with rights, as domestic partnerships & civil unions can produce precisely the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. This instead is where a pattern of livelyhood is being portrayed as perfectly normal, and dammit it's to be accepted by all. Usurping the normalized term marriage, and allowing it to be placed on that which many do not see as normal, or acceptable, minus any effort at compromise, does appear to be the sole purpose, at this point. Would you not agree, Prince?
-
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one?s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse?s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse?s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian?s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe?s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child?s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state?s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html (http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html)
-
So I can't marry my first cousin?
He is going to be so disapointed.
-
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
=================================
So now the individual exists for the benefit of the state? The state should also prohibit all couples who cannot reproduce from marrying. Indeed, a coupe's marriage should not be finalized and rewarded with tax breaks until a hild has been produced by this logic.
But I suggest that the individual does NOT exist for the benefit of the state. It is the state that exists for the benefit of the individuals.
This argument, is therefore, bogus, and not only bogus, but founded on a dangerous and majorly bogus assumption: that the individual exists for the state, and that the state should benefit by the growth of the society it rules by creating even more citizens, which in turn would require more, and therefore a BIGGER government.
Thereby violating your desire "4 less government".
-
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
=================================
So now the individual exists for the benefit of the state?
IIRC, they do, if its a state of Socialism or Communism
-
"Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights"
agreed so stop murdering the babies!
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/Everyone.gif)
-
>>So I can't marry my first cousin?<<
And who are we to say you can't? Or perhaps you'd like to marry your sister? If you love each other, and are committed to each other? Maybe you'd like to marry your mother? What right does anyone have to take away your right to marry?
-
But I appreciate you validating my point, that this argeuemnt has little to do with rights, as domestic partnerships & civil unions can produce precisely the same rights as a married heterosexual couple.
I don't recall having said or implied that, so I'm not sure how I validated your point.
This instead is where a pattern of livelyhood is being portrayed as perfectly normal, and dammit it's to be accepted by all. Usurping the normalized term marriage, and allowing it to be placed on that which many do not see as normal, or acceptable, minus any effort at compromise, does appear to be the sole purpose, at this point. Would you not agree, Prince?
What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being. The whole "they can do everything just like a marriage but they just cannot call it a marriage" seems like a ridiculous position to me. If we agree they can have a legal agreement with the same privileges as a marriage and that functions, supposedly, exactly as a marriage, then why not simply call it a marriage? I don't see the point in trying to preserve the word "marriage".
You say "minus any effort at compromise" as if there is some compromise between having a liberty and not having a liberty. What is there to compromise? Heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another. What is your compromise? We can't call it a marriage because it's not normal? What the frak does normal have to do with it?
-
>>What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being.<<
To most people that's exactly the point. I believe, and I think most people do also, that marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. It's not a big stretch to think that governments will eventually force churches to approve such marriages and punish those who don't by removing their tax exempt status or worse. The governments in the banking business and could soon be in the automobile business, would the marriage business be a big stretch?
Let them create a contract. Hire a lawyer. Personally I don't believe this, "I can't visit him on his deathbed" bullshit anyway.
-
But I appreciate you validating my point, that this argeuemnt has little to do with rights, as domestic partnerships & civil unions can produce precisely the same rights as a married heterosexual couple.
I don't recall having said or implied that, so I'm not sure how I validated your point.
Because an earlier point I made, which you may or my not have read, was that rights are largely a red herring, in this discussion. You yourself have acknowledged that there are equal rights, and that your criticism is aimed at so-called equal liberty. But you echoed my point with your concession, "while I might technically agree that homosexuals have the same right, they do not have the same liberty"
This instead is where a pattern of livelyhood is being portrayed as perfectly normal, and dammit it's to be accepted by all. Usurping the normalized term marriage, and allowing it to be placed on that which many do not see as normal, or acceptable, minus any effort at compromise, does appear to be the sole purpose, at this point. Would you not agree, Prince?
What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being. The whole "they can do everything just like a marriage but they just cannot call it a marriage" seems like a ridiculous position to me.
Ridiculous to you perhaps. Not to the millions who would consider the word far more important than you apparently see it. Which begs the question then, if the word marriage isn't a big issue to folks like yourself, why the inability to compromise by referring to it as a domestic partnership for same sex couples??
If we agree they can have a legal agreement with the same privileges as a marriage and that functions, supposedly, exactly as a marriage, then why not simply call it a marriage? I don't see the point in trying to preserve the word "marriage".
Because marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why
You say "minus any effort at compromise" as if there is some compromise between having a liberty and not having a liberty. What is there to compromise?
A position of not supporting any civil union, what-so-ever, making such relationships analgous to adultery, and largely demonizing the term homosexuality & homosexuals, as it once was, on a 24/7 basis. The compromise is to accept said relationships, to accept equal rights under a civil union, to accept the increasing prevelence of said relationships as the norm in society. Where's the compromise from the other side? I'm not seeing it
-
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals.
[...]
The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
This is not a valid argument against homosexual marriage. It is, on the other hand, a start for an argument against the state granting special privileges to married couples.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
[...]
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
So the argument is that procreation is to be done for the benefit of the state? Or perhaps that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage? I'm guessing both. The argument is nonsense. This might be a secular case against homosexual marriage, but it seems to be based nonetheless on a sense that individuals have a moral obligation, not to a god, but to the state, thus making the state a god and service to the state the approved "religion". So in the end the objection comes down to the same thing as a religious argument. Opposition to homosexual marriage because it is against the author's moral dogma. Or more accurately, because it removes control of people from the "religious".
The burden of proof is on those who oppose homosexual marriage in this way to prove that the state needs (not wants but needs) to have a specific interest in only permitting marriage on the grounds procreation and that procreation is something that is to be done for the service of the state. This burden has not been met. I doubt very seriously that it can be.
-
>>What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being.<<
To most people that's exactly the point. I believe, and I think most people do also, that marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. It's not a big stretch to think that governments will eventually force churches to approve such marriages and punish those who don't by removing their tax exempt status or worse. The governments in the banking business and could soon be in the automobile business, would the marriage business be a big stretch?
Let them create a contract. Hire a lawyer. Personally I don't believe this, "I can't visit him on his deathbed" bullshit anyway.
Let them create a contract. I say that should be the way all marriages are handled. I agree that the government should meddle less. And marriage contracts are no exception.
Marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. If we lived in a theocracy that might matter more, if it is true in the first place.
-
Because an earlier point I made, which you may or my not have read, was that rights are largely a red herring, in this discussion. You yourself have acknowledged that there are equal rights, and that your criticism is aimed at so-called equal liberty. But you echoed my point with your concession, "while I might technically agree that homosexuals have the same right, they do not have the same liberty"
Rights, imo, are something each person has as a human being, not something given by the state. So I doubt my comment validates yours.
Ridiculous to you perhaps. Not to the millions who would consider the word far more important than you apparently see it. Which begs the question then, if the word marriage isn't a big issue to folks like yourself, why the inability to compromise by referring to it as a domestic partnership for same sex couples??
I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.
Because marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why
Because you want to preserve a definition of a word. Again, flimsy at best.
A position of not supporting any civil union, what-so-ever, making such relationships analgous to adultery, and largely demonizing the term homosexuality & homosexuals, as it once was, on a 24/7 basis. The compromise is to accept said relationships, to accept equal rights under a civil union, to accept the increasing prevelence of said relationships as the norm in society. Where's the compromise from the other side? I'm not seeing it
What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I'm not sure why there should be an expectation of compromise from the homosexuals for those things to stop.
-
Sirs, the culture wars are over. Go for a run, eat some tofu, meditate, gaze at the stars, become green.
-
Marriage is a sacrament given to us by God. If we lived in a theocracy that might matter more, if it is true in the first place.
Marriage BY THE CHURCH might be a sacrament given by God. Observe that people who do not believe in God also get married, as do those who believe in whole bunches of Gods.
But that is not the issue here. We are talking about civil marriage, which is clearly performed by the state, and this has no effect on whatever degree of holiness you place on a church wedding.
Apples and oranges, apples and crabapples, but different things.
As BSB said, the culture wars are over and your side lost.
and again, what possible harm to anyone's marriage could it be if Adam marries Steve in the County Court? You have yet to answer that question, haven't you? I suggest none, as in bupkiss, nada or zilch.
-
Marriage BY THE CHURCH might be a sacrament given by God. Observe that people who do not believe in God also get married, as do those who believe in whole bunches of Gods.
Good point.
But that is not the issue here. We are talking about civil marriage, which is clearly performed by the state, and this has no effect on whatever degree of holiness you place on a church wedding.
Which was why I pointed out that we don't live in a theocracy.
and again, what possible harm to anyone's marriage could it be if Adam marries Steve in the County Court? You have yet to answer that question, haven't you? I suggest none, as in bupkiss, nada or zilch.
You quoted me, but since I am not arguing against your position, I am going to conclude that you did not intend the above comment to be directed at me.
-
Sirs, the culture wars are over. Go for a run, eat some tofu, meditate, gaze at the stars, become green.
I disagree, and no thank you
-
Actually, you are entirely correct. I was directing my comments at sirs.
I am opposed to the government forcing any clergyman to marry anyone they do not deem fits their own theological criteria.
-
Rights, imo, are something each person has as a human being, not something given by the state. So I doubt my comment validates yours.
Well, considering they echoed my point about homosexual couples as able to have the same rights as married couples, yes, you infact did
Ridiculous to you perhaps. Not to the millions who would consider the word far more important than you apparently see it. Which begs the question then, if the word marriage isn't a big issue to folks like yourself, why the inability to compromise by referring to it as a domestic partnership for same sex couples??
I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.
Precisely my point. Many do, so if you are of those who care squat, then why the inability to compromise with those who "do give a crap"??
Because marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why
Because you want to preserve a definition of a word. Again, flimsy at best.
In your opinion, perhaps. You know, the dichotomy is intriguing. 1 side, who concedes that rights are pretty much equal, but rationalizes no need to compromise, in any sense, claiming no need to, as if their position is THE position to attain to, on a point that's largely about one word, that they confess they care so little about. Truely intriguing
A position of not supporting any civil union, what-so-ever, making such relationships analgous to adultery, and largely demonizing the term homosexuality & homosexuals, as it once was, on a 24/7 basis. The compromise is to accept said relationships, to accept equal rights under a civil union, to accept the increasing prevelence of said relationships as the norm in society. Where's the compromise from the other side? I'm not seeing it
What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I'm not sure why there should be an expectation of compromise from the homosexuals for those things to stop.
See what I mean? Apparently the side that expects uniform acceptance of a lifestyle the majority of Americans find immoral has no need to compromise at any level ::)
-
>>What appears to me to be the point is the preservation of a word as if somehow this one word has some sacred meaning handed down by a divine being.<<
For the majority of America that's the case. Why is it I have to be tolerant of some reprobates idea of marriage, but he doesn't have to be tolerant of mine and the vast majority? The perverted morals of the left aren't America's morals. I have to sit back and be silent when the left attempts to force their "values" on me when they refuse to accept mine? This is the case everytime. I have to remove the nativity scene. I have to stop praying at football games and in school. I have to go to the gym to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The left has to stop .... what? Attacking Conservative speakers on campus? Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy? What?
Get a lawyer. Make a contract. Sign it, and leave marriage alone.
-
So you claim that religious people own the word "marriage", and no one else can use it?
Why should anyone be tolerant or consider as some religious authority a geek who portrays himself as a sneering horned being having an extremely bad hair day who shows not a whit of Christian love and tolerance?
You don't have to sit back and be silent. Go ahead and rant your pointy little head off. Go build your own Nativity scene in your yard, say all the prayers you wish silently--you are not praying to the multitudes, but to God, and He says he always hears you: pray for the Lions to slaughter the Tigers or the Heat to melt the Penguins, that is your right.
Just don't expect others to agree with your constant rantings, ravings, pissings and moanings. Go unto Rush, and Mr Smedley and let them assuage your fears and anger.
-
Don't worry asshole. I won't be silent. I'll be right in your piggy eyed little face.
-
No, you won't. You will be appearing as you portray yourself, a hornéd being with some sort of mutant muff on your head, and dumb, insulting words typed alongside.
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
===================================================
I think that it must be in there somewhere, but you have a good point.
It is probably safe to assume that if the Bible thinks gay men having sex in the manner of a hetero couple should be executed, this probably suggests that the act of gay sex is not likely to be approved by God if the same two people are married.
I don't think the concept of gay marriage was even considered as thinkable by the ancient Hebrews.
Alaexander the Great was a noted devotee of gay sex, but I don't think he and Hephaestion ever considered marriage. Though when Alex married Roxanna, Hephaestion did give him a really cool ring in Oliver Stone's flick.
There was not an overpopulation problem back in antiquity. We brought this on ourselves by curing so any diseases, and people are not dying so soon. I am sure that whatever Alex (or hephaestion) died of, it could have been cured by the good doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Another point: the more people are gay and married, the lower the birth rate will be, which these days, is probably a good thing.
-
This obsession with my aviltar it distrurbing.
You really don't know who that is?
Anybody care to help out the libtard?
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??
-
This obsession with my aviltar it distrurbing.
It it Bugs Bunny? Could those be carrots?
You seem to have chosen a deliberately "distrurbing aviltar".
-
Is it disturbing you? Or are you simply disturbed?
Again, check your medication. I think you may have skipped it today.
-
Perhaps you feel as though you should represent yourself as Mick Jagger, dressed to play the role of a satyr in "A Midsummer Night's Dream".
But why?
-
xo i see you are as wrong about rock music as you are about politics
thats not mick jagger, thats Angus Young of AC/DC
(http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/Acdc_Highway_to_Hell.JPG)
-
Would that disturb you also?
More than Angus Young?
If so, I'd be happy to do so. Watching you fall apart is entertaining for sure. Seeing you taken away in an ambulance babbling about my avatar would be exquisite.
-
Thank you RD.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/10/21/amd_acdc2.jpg)
-
Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do. Any man can marry any woman who is willing. Just as I can.
That is a semantic argument. I can counter it with a semantic argument of equal or higher value. Heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another. And while I might technically agree that homosexuals have the same right, they do not have the same liberty under the law, which is to say the law discriminates against them. So in the sense that you are using the word "rights", no, homosexuals do not have the same rights as you. In the sense that I am using the word "right", their right is infringed by the lack of liberty. They ought to have the liberty to exercise their right. A desire to protect a definition of a word is not, imo, even close to sufficient grounds for legally preventing homosexuals from marriage. It seems, in point of fact, rather petty.
So do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Interesting that the anti-government, pro-liberty "libertarians" support a massive, unwelcome, government intervention into the habits and customs of the people, one which creates obligations on the part of parties that aren't even signatories, and can't even name a single public interest to justify doing so. As I said, libertarians are good for patting themselves on the back for their consistent support of individual liberty, as long as they can keep quietly redefining individual liberty in support of whatever particular hobbyhorse they happen to be riding at the moment.
Further, while you might make the argument that every person should be treated equally under the law, let me point out that associations between people are not persons, and the law distinguishes between those associations routinely. Bowling teams are not regulated like corporations, churches are not regulated like government contractors, and parents are not regulated like military facilities.
Marriage, as a long standing custom, has a number of arguable benefits to society at large, not the least of which that it provides institutional support for a biological imperative - namely, that as mammals, we reproduce sexually. Given that there's no comparable benefit to gay relationships, the only argument available amounts to, "But mom, you let them do it!".
The argument for heterosexual marriage rests on a biological imperative. The only argument for gay marriage is one of equality, using a truly tortured definition of "equal". The arguments for heterosexual marriage stand on their own. Absent the existence of heterosexual marriage, what are the arguments for gay marriage?
The fact that the only argument you have relies on a claim of equality indicates the situations are not equal. You can argue for heterosexual marriage all day long without having the word "equal" come up once. Take that word out of the argument for gay marriage, and the arguments fall down like a house of cards. If you don't believe that, try making a case for gay marriage without a reference to straight marriage. I doubt you could make much of a case.
-
[.........]
Married in America
In the United States, as in Europe, how and why people married, who was allowed to marry, and how marriages functioned has also continually evolved.
In early American Colonial days, when there were few courts or churches, marriages were informal by necessity — many got married by living together and declaring themselves husband and wife. Such common-law marriages are still allowed in 11 states and the District of Columbia, said Mintz, of the University of Houston.
Before the Civil War, slaves were considered property and thus could not marry legally, though many slaves held their own ceremonies.
After the war, many states banned interracial marriages. Also, in the early 1900s, when anti-Asian sentiment was high, a national law said women who married Asians — even U.S.-born Asians — lost their citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967.
[.............]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html)
-
and....................................?
-
[.........]
Married in America
In the United States, as in Europe, how and why people married, who was allowed to marry, and how marriages functioned has also continually evolved.
In early American Colonial days, when there were few courts or churches, marriages were informal by necessity — many got married by living together and declaring themselves husband and wife. Such common-law marriages are still allowed in 11 states and the District of Columbia, said Mintz, of the University of Houston.
Before the Civil War, slaves were considered property and thus could not marry legally, though many slaves held their own ceremonies.
After the war, many states banned interracial marriages. Also, in the early 1900s, when anti-Asian sentiment was high, a national law said women who married Asians — even U.S.-born Asians — lost their citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967.
[.............]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html)
In these 11 States that allow for common law marrage, would there be standing for common law homosexual "marrage" once the rules changed to create Homosexual "marrage"?
-
I do not like rock music much, rarely listen to it, and have never heard of Angus Young, although I have herd of AC/DC. I could not tell you the name of a single song or album they have made.
I know even less and care far less about sports.
But I know more about politics than you ever will.
The image you chose is just weird, and annoying, as are you. You are far more annoying than weird, though. Weirdness requires a degree of creativity it is unlikely you will ever possess.
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??
I'm not trying to make a point that the Bible specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman. You, on the other hand, keep opining that for some reason that is all a marriage can be - between a man and a woman - yet you obviously cannot come up with a
Biblical reference supporting that.
It is probably safe to assume that if the Bible thinks gay men having sex in the manner of a hetero couple should be executed, this probably suggests that the act of gay sex is not likely to be approved by God if the same two people are married.
So they cannot marry even if they remain celibate?
-
I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.
Precisely my point. Many do, so if you are of those who care squat, then why the inability to compromise with those who "do give a crap"??
There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.
1 side, who concedes that rights are pretty much equal, but rationalizes no need to compromise, in any sense, claiming no need to, as if their position is THE position to attain to, on a point that's largely about one word, that they confess they care so little about. Truely intriguing
Well, from my perspective, yes, greater liberty is the position to attain. Because the rights might be equal, but the liberty is not.
See what I mean? Apparently the side that expects uniform acceptance of a lifestyle the majority of Americans find immoral has no need to compromise at any level
Again, What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. It's sort of like suggesting the blacks need to compromise on what equal means in regard to civil rights. I don't see what it the homosexuals need to compromise.
-
Why is it I have to be tolerant of some reprobates idea of marriage, but he doesn't have to be tolerant of mine and the vast majority?
I don't recall anyone making that argument. I am not aware of anyone saying homosexuals but not heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
I have to sit back and be silent when the left attempts to force their "values" on me when they refuse to accept mine?
Who said you have to be silent? I did not. And I don't recall anyone saying you personally have to approve of homosexual marriage or engage in one. Do people who have adultery force their values on you? Do unmarried couples force their values on you? No one argues you must approve or endorse or participate in these things, yet I don't see you arguing these things should be prohibited by law.
This is the case everytime. I have to remove the nativity scene. I have to stop praying at football games and in school. I have to go to the gym to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The left has to stop .... what? Attacking Conservative speakers on campus? Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy? What?
You have to remove what nativity scene? Anyway, there are a lot of things the left could and should stop. Demanding bailouts for corporations comes to mind.
Get a lawyer. Make a contract. Sign it, and leave marriage alone.
Again, making a legal contract should be what heterosexual couples do too. That would eliminate most of the issue in the first place.
-
The entire point of the revolution was to make a government that was ABOVE ALL subject to the will of the people. No branch of the government has the right to overrule the people. The federal constitution was ordained and established by the people. This is also true, if only by extension, of all state constitutions.
Proposition 8 is an amendment to the constitution. No court has the right to overrule that. The people of California chose to OVERRULE the State Supreme Court. They have that right. Unless that right is upheld, the government of California becomes a tyranny. If the government has the right to overrule the will of the people, there is no government of, by and for the people. There is a government of, by and for the government.
If the Supreme Court of California overturns the will of the people, overthrow of that government is justified. This is not because of the issue at hand (gay marriage). This would be equally true if the people voted to amend the constitution to establish gay marriage, legalize abortion or outlaw Mormonism. If the people cannot OVERRULE the government, they must OVERTHROW them or the governmnt will in FACT have what they now have in practice: absolute control of the people.
The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people. Marriages should be a matter of religious rite. For legal purposes, whether gay or straight, asset distribution, medical rights and other such issues are equal for everyone, irrespective of gender, race or any other factor except those which may put one party at undue risk (as in unions with children or family members or polygamy). I know an American-English couple who were married in the LDS Temple in London. Before they could do that, they had to have a civil ceremony or English law would not recognize the marriage. (Only marriages in the Anglican Church, which is the established religion in England, are recognized without a prior civil ceremony.) If all couplings were civil unions as far as the government was concerned (grandfathering any marriages already established, whether gay or straight, to avoid a logistical nightmare) and marriages were performed only by churches according to their individual beliefs, neither the rights of Americans to choose nor the rights of Americans to believe as they wish will be violated. Extreme fundies would whine that we were all going to hell and extreme gays would argue that they are not accepted fully but that's tough on both sides. This nation was built on compromise.
Butu whatever the final decision, the people have the right to make their own government. It's what Thomas Jefferson wrote that little piece of paper about. It's what the Constitution is all about. It's what soldiers have died for over more than two centuries.
The government has taken too much power from the people. If we cannot stem the tide at the voting booth it really is time to take to the barricades. There is no other choice.
-
So do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Yes.
Interesting that the anti-government, pro-liberty "libertarians" support a massive, unwelcome, government intervention into the habits and customs of the people, one which creates obligations on the part of parties that aren't even signatories, and can't even name a single public interest to justify doing so. As I said, libertarians are good for patting themselves on the back for their consistent support of individual liberty, as long as they can keep quietly redefining individual liberty in support of whatever particular hobbyhorse they happen to be riding at the moment.
I have not redefined individual liberty. (And neither has any other libertarian for that matter.) Once again, you distort and attempt to misdirect. I'm not supporting government intervention. I'm supporting getting government out of the way. Your continued attempts to insist that libertarians support the opposite of what they actually support indicates you're either too foolish to understand or deliberately attempting to deceive.
Further, while you might make the argument that every person should be treated equally under the law, let me point out that associations between people are not persons, and the law distinguishes between those associations routinely. Bowling teams are not regulated like corporations, churches are not regulated like government contractors, and parents are not regulated like military facilities.
Indeed. But then, there are no laws against homosexuals forming bowling teams or corporations. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given special or different privileges or fall under a different set of laws. In point of fact, I am arguing that they should simply be allowed to fall under the same set of laws as heterosexuals. So your counterargument is baseless.
Marriage, as a long standing custom, has a number of arguable benefits to society at large, not the least of which that it provides institutional support for a biological imperative - namely, that as mammals, we reproduce sexually. Given that there's no comparable benefit to gay relationships, the only argument available amounts to, "But mom, you let them do it!".
No, the argument is that the government should not be playing the part of the parent granting privileges to heterosexual couples because they're heterosexual. For a very long time, slavery had arguable benefits to society at large. By your thinking, the abolitionist argument is little more than "But mom, they get to be free!" That isn't the argument at all, and you know that full well, or you should by now.
The argument for heterosexual marriage rests on a biological imperative. The only argument for gay marriage is one of equality, using a truly tortured definition of "equal". The arguments for heterosexual marriage stand on their own. Absent the existence of heterosexual marriage, what are the arguments for gay marriage?
No, the argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another does not rest on sexual reproduction. The argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another is that they are individuals who have a right decide for themselves to enter into a contract with another individual.
The fact that the only argument you have relies on a claim of equality indicates the situations are not equal. You can argue for heterosexual marriage all day long without having the word "equal" come up once. Take that word out of the argument for gay marriage, and the arguments fall down like a house of cards. If you don't believe that, try making a case for gay marriage without a reference to straight marriage. I doubt you could make much of a case.
Indeed the situations are not equal. As has been pointed out: heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another. That is definitely unequal.
Ahem. You can argue for white people's freedom from slavery all day long without having the word "equal" come up once. Take that word out of the argument for black people's freedom from slavery, and the arguments fall down like... No, actually they don't fall down at all. But in any case, I can argue for people being allowed to enter into a marriage contract without mentioning straight marriage at all.
Individuals have the right as individuals and should have the liberty to exercise the right to enter into marriage contracts with another consenting person of their choice. Prohibiting that liberty to a minority of the population who have done nothing wrong is an infringement of rights in which the government has no business engaging. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
-
The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people.
I could and would (and essentially do) support that.
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??
I'm not trying to make a point that the Bible specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman. You, on the other hand, keep opining that for some reason that is all a marriage can be - between a man and a woman - yet you obviously cannot come up with a Biblical reference supporting that.
Especially ironic since I never claimed that the Bible was the end all to this position, regarding marriage
I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.
Precisely my point. Many do, so if you are of those who care squat, then why the inability to compromise with those who "do give a crap"??
There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.
To YOU, perhaps. To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much
1 side, who concedes that rights are pretty much equal, but rationalizes no need to compromise, in any sense, claiming no need to, as if their position is THE position to attain to, on a point that's largely about one word, that they confess they care so little about. Truely intriguing
Well, from my perspective, yes, greater liberty is the position to attain. Because the rights might be equal, but the liberty is not.
Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.
See what I mean? Apparently the side that expects uniform acceptance of a lifestyle the majority of Americans find immoral has no need to compromise at any level
Again, What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place. It's sort of like suggesting the blacks need to compromise on what equal means in regard to civil rights. I don't see what it the homosexuals need to compromise.
It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact. Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color. The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back
When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue. My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene
-
There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.
To YOU, perhaps. To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much
You should not assume that your appreciation for marriage and what it traditionally stands for is greater than mine.
Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.
You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.
It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact. Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color. The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back
It's called a comparison. No need to hyperventilate over it.
When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue. My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene
They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.
-
Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
Marriage was established as the norm at creation. (It is only logical - as in bio-logical, that ths would be so. Propagation of the species works better with opposite sex couples. Nature discriminates like all git-out.)
Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."
One MIGHT argue that gays can be "husband and wife" but Paul was pretty clear on the definition. He himself apparently remained unmarried, and thought celibacy was a keen idea (to the everlasting discomfort of an awful lot of literal-minded Catholic priests). But he recognized that celibacy wasn't particularly practical, and might even lead to sexual sins. So he said:
1 Cor 7:2 "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
It would be an awfully long stretch to suggest that this definition allowed for the possibility of same-sex marriage.
In fact, however, your question is just so much semantical posturing. It is pretty clear that the Bible (and most cultures in the world) define marriage as being a ceremonial joining of a couple the purpose of which (at least in social and species-propagation terms) is procreation.
The question of whether homosexual marriage is wrong is one of morals. The question of whether the people have the right to establish their own standards in a community, a state or this country is one of law.
-
There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.
So you think that homosexuals are ridiculous for insisting that their unions be called a marriage?
-
So do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Yes.
That's interesting. In which state is marriage between two heterosexuals of the same gender legal? I'd like to see you produce the law.
Interesting that the anti-government, pro-liberty "libertarians" support a massive, unwelcome, government intervention into the habits and customs of the people, one which creates obligations on the part of parties that aren't even signatories, and can't even name a single public interest to justify doing so. As I said, libertarians are good for patting themselves on the back for their consistent support of individual liberty, as long as they can keep quietly redefining individual liberty in support of whatever particular hobbyhorse they happen to be riding at the moment.
I have not redefined individual liberty. (And neither has any other libertarian for that matter.) Once again, you distort and attempt to misdirect. I'm not supporting government intervention. I'm supporting getting government out of the way. Your continued attempts to insist that libertarians support the opposite of what they actually support indicates you're either too foolish to understand or deliberately attempting to deceive.
And that's total bullshit. There currently is no law prohibiting gays or anyone else from making a *private* contract between themselves. The entire point at issue is access to a *public* institution, one which creates obligations on the part of other parties not signatories. In regard to private conduct and private contracts, the government is already out of the way.
Indeed. But then, there are no laws against homosexuals forming bowling teams or corporations. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given special or different privileges or fall under a different set of laws. In point of fact, I am arguing that they should simply be allowed to fall under the same set of laws as heterosexuals. So your counterargument is baseless.
They already do. They have the same right to get married as anyone else does. What they can't do is define to suit themselves what constitutes a marriage, any more than random members of society can define what constitutes an army, a corporation, or a parent. Those are all clearly defined associations.
Marriage, as a long standing custom, has a number of arguable benefits to society at large, not the least of which that it provides institutional support for a biological imperative - namely, that as mammals, we reproduce sexually. Given that there's no comparable benefit to gay relationships, the only argument available amounts to, "But mom, you let them do it!".
No, the argument is that the government should not be playing the part of the parent granting privileges to heterosexual couples because they're heterosexual. For a very long time, slavery had arguable benefits to society at large. By your thinking, the abolitionist argument is little more than "But mom, they get to be free!" That isn't the argument at all, and you know that full well, or you should by now.
Ah! The reducto ad servium argument! How did I know that was coming? Everything reduces to slavery!
Not in the least a valid comparison. I'm in no way advocating limiting anybody's freedom to act. I'm not advocating putting people in jail, preventing them from associating with who they want, or having sex with anyone they like, any way they like, or even preventing them from making any kind of private contract between themselves.
I'm simply pointing out that specific protections are granted to associations that have demonstrated effects on the public at large. Corporations are subject to a certain set of privileges and regulations because their actions have benefits have effects on the public at large. Bowling teams are not subject to any such legal recognition because their activities are of no interest to anyone than the parties immediately involved. Likewise, heterosexual relationships are given protections because the effects of those relationships (children) very much have an effect on the public at large, not to mention they have effects on the children themselves. Gay relationships have no public impacts other than to the immediate participants. Therefore, they have no claim on the protection of public law.
That's like arguing that because farmers get subsidies, we should give them to yoga teachers as well. While I'm not a fan of farm subsidies, I can at least see the rationale behind them. Food is a necessity. Yoga is not.
The argument for heterosexual marriage rests on a biological imperative. The only argument for gay marriage is one of equality, using a truly tortured definition of "equal". The arguments for heterosexual marriage stand on their own. Absent the existence of heterosexual marriage, what are the arguments for gay marriage?
No, the argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another does not rest on sexual reproduction. The argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another is that they are individuals who have a right decide for themselves to enter into a contract with another individual.
Exactly what prevents them from a *private* contract now? Distinguish - marriage is not a private contract. Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties. It is not only a contract between the immediate parties, but a partnership with the public at large, as well. Unless you can make a case for a public interest that trumps the right of other individuals and institutions to use their discretion as to whether they wish to recognize other people's association, you certainly aren't advocating freedom.
-
>>Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties.<<
And, if two men, or two women, have a marriage certificate, what happens to the obligations originaly created for a man and a women? They are passed on to the gay couples as well, are they not?
-
The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people.
I could and would (and essentially do) support that.
Excellent point... and agreed. The "marriage" is religious and very personal. Those who wish to be married will do so in their own churches for their own reasons, and the Civil Union will be simply putting things down on paper to make it legal.
-
There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.
To YOU, perhaps. To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much
You should not assume that your appreciation for marriage and what it traditionally stands for is greater than mine.
You're the one that apparently doesn't care squat about the term. You've made that abundantly clear
Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.
You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.
The premise is simple......homosexuality is either a choice or its not. Without something more concrete than your "pretty sure", the notion that you have no reason to compromise has no foundation......outside of your say so, of course
It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact. Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color. The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back
It's called a comparison. No need to hyperventilate over it.
No hyperventilating over here. Simply hilighting how invalid a comparison it is
When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue. My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene
They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.
Your "pretty sure" isn't enough to trump God's words, for me, I'm afraid.
-
So you think that homosexuals are ridiculous for insisting that their unions be called a marriage?
Pretty sure that is not what I said. If we are talking about unions that are legally marriages in everything but name, then yeah I think the name is a battle that serves little purpose. But I understand it more from the homosexuals who think the name conveys legitimacy than from those who oppose it because the definition of the word as they understand it is something with which they cannot bear to part.
-
That's interesting. In which state is marriage between two heterosexuals of the same gender legal? I'd like to see you produce the law.
You didn't ask me if it was legal. You asked me if heterosexuals had a right to marry someone of the same gender. In my opinion, a right is not the same as a legally allowed liberty. I've explained that to you already. Pay attention.
And that's total bullshit.
No, it's an honest refutation of your nonsense. If you don't like it, I don't care.
There currently is no law prohibiting gays or anyone else from making a *private* contract between themselves. The entire point at issue is access to a *public* institution, one which creates obligations on the part of other parties not signatories. In regard to private conduct and private contracts, the government is already out of the way.
You're not paying attention at all, are you? At least one person here (not me) has said homosexuals should be allowed civil unions that are marriages in all but name. I have argued that the obligations you're bitching about should not exist because the government shouldn't obligating itself that way to anyone in the first place. Your particular point of issue might be access to supposedly public obligations, but I am not advocating the government intervene to force more obligations. I am, as I said, arguing that the government get out of the way. Other folks seem to be fine with civil unions that amount to legal marriages in all but name. If you want to complain about obligations, talk to them, not me, but pay attention.
They have the same right to get married as anyone else does. What they can't do is define to suit themselves what constitutes a marriage, any more than random members of society can define what constitutes an army, a corporation, or a parent. Those are all clearly defined associations.
No they are not. Well, the Army might be, but while there are certain legal definitions of a corporation, with in that definition there are different kinds of corporations. And there are most certainly different kinds of parents. There is no reason there cannot be different kinds of marriages. And at the same time, the government should not be, imo, in the business of defining marriage.
Ah! The reducto ad servium argument! How did I know that was coming? Everything reduces to slavery!
It's a convenient and apt comparison. Get over yourself.
Not in the least a valid comparison. I'm in no way advocating limiting anybody's freedom to act.
Yes, it is, and yes, you are. You want to prevent them from being able to marry one another.
I'm simply pointing out that specific protections are granted to associations that have demonstrated effects on the public at large. Corporations are subject to a certain set of privileges and regulations because their actions have benefits have effects on the public at large. Bowling teams are not subject to any such legal recognition because their activities are of no interest to anyone than the parties immediately involved. Likewise, heterosexual relationships are given protections because the effects of those relationships (children) very much have an effect on the public at large, not to mention they have effects on the children themselves. Gay relationships have no public impacts other than to the immediate participants. Therefore, they have no claim on the protection of public law.
Assuming that the homosexuals do not adopt or in some other way decide to produce children, which is increasingly viable and likely. Which is why said assumption is a really bad one. But let me know when you advocate forcing heterosexual couples to legally and publically declare intent to have children before allowing the heterosexual couples to legally marry. Then maybe, maybe, you'd have a valid argument. Until then, you're still advocating unreasonable discrimination via the law against homosexuals.
That's like arguing that because farmers get subsidies, we should give them to yoga teachers as well. While I'm not a fan of farm subsidies, I can at least see the rationale behind them. Food is a necessity. Yoga is not.
Actually, my argument is more like arguing that the farmers shouldn't have subsidies either.
Exactly what prevents them from a *private* contract now? Distinguish - marriage is not a private contract. Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties. It is not only a contract between the immediate parties, but a partnership with the public at large, as well. Unless you can make a case for a public interest that trumps the right of other individuals and institutions to use their discretion as to whether they wish to recognize other people's association, you certainly aren't advocating freedom.
Marriage is a private contract made by two private citizens. That the government has presumed to create laws resulting in some sort of public obligation is an issue with the government, not with homosexuals who seek to enter into private marriage contracts. And since you are the one making the argument that supposedly public interest trumps the rights of individuals, you are the one not advocating freedom. I'm not arguing that a marriage contract should obligate other people who are not signatories in any way. You, on the other hand, apparently are. And upon this basis, you insist then that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. You seem bound and determined to argue against freedom. I, however, am advocating that the government get out of the way and allow people to form private marriage contracts whether those people are heterosexual or homosexual. So, yes, in point of fact, I am advocating freedom.
-
You're the one that apparently doesn't care squat about the term. You've made that abundantly clear
That I don't care whether homosexuals can legally claim to be married in our secular society does not mean I don't care about the term. You're making assumptions.
Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.
You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.
The premise is simple......homosexuality is either a choice or its not. Without something more concrete than your "pretty sure", the notion that you have no reason to compromise has no foundation......outside of your say so, of course
I'm guessing that makes perfect sense to you. I don't recall saying the need to or not to compromise had anything to do with whether or not homosexuality was a choice.
They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.
Your "pretty sure" isn't enough to trump God's words, for me, I'm afraid.
My "pretty sure" was a bit of sarcasm. And I'm, ahem, pretty sure that there is nothing in the Bible that says homosexuals are not human beings. So my words don't have to trump God's words since I'm not contradicting God's words. And my point was not to whether or not homosexuality is a choice, but to homosexuals being human making them subject to civil rights considerations.
-
So they cannot marry even if they remain celibate?
Is an unconsumated marrage ,a marrage?
After all by BillClintonstandards there wouldn't be any real sex.
-
So you think that homosexuals are ridiculous for insisting that their unions be called a marriage?
Pretty sure that is not what I said. If we are talking about unions that are legally marriages in everything but name, then yeah I think the name is a battle that serves little purpose. But I understand it more from the homosexuals who think the name conveys legitimacy than from those who oppose it because the definition of the word as they understand it is something with which they cannot bear to part.
All practical purposes can be served by secular contracts and powers of attorney that can be had already.
Insisting on public approval is more the point.
A marrage cerimony calls on the congregation to support the union and "what God has Joind together let no man take asunder".
-
A federal bailout for Prop. 8
A Colorado battle may offer a means of challenging California's same-sex marriage ban.
By Brian E. Gray
November 17, 2008
» Discuss Article (172 Comments)
In 1992, by a 53%-47% split, Coloradans passed an amendment to their state Constitution that repealed laws in Aspen, Boulder and Denver that prohibited discrimination against gays. The amendment barred the state and its political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any law "whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" are the basis of a claim of discrimination. Does this sound familiar?
As the proponents of same-sex marriage rights determine the proper response to Proposition 8, it is illuminating to compare Colorado's rejection of "gay rights" with California's repudiation of "gay marriage."
The day after the Nov. 4 election, a coalition of civil rights groups asked the California Supreme Court to declare that Proposition 8 was unlawfully enacted. The essence of their claim is that a constitutional change that rescinds individual rights must first be passed by a supermajority in the Legislature before being submitted to voters. This process-based claim may well have merit, but there exists a more direct means of challenging Proposition 8 based on the U.S. Constitution.
Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
Writing for a 6-3 majority in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that it "is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws. It provides that gays and lesbians -- alone among consenting adult couples -- shall not have the opportunity to enjoy the rights, privileges and social approbation conferred by the status of lawful marriage. And despite their insistence that the initiative was "not an attack on the gay lifestyle," its proponents were remarkably candid about their disapproval of homosexual families. The amendment, they argued in voter guides, "protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage." It protects marriage "as an essential institution of society" because "the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."
But as California's chief justice, Ronald M. George, explained in his opinion declaring the state's previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does nothing to protect the interests of children. "An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation." Moreover, "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples."
In other words, the reasons for denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry that served as the "factual" basis for Proposition 8 are but pretexts for discrimination.
This is not to say, of course, that the federal courts would hold Proposition 8 to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. There are differences between the marriage ban and Colorado's prohibition of all sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws. As Kennedy noted in Romer vs. Evans, Amendment 2 "has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group." Proposition 8, in contrast, was narrowly focused on one civil right -- marriage. Moreover, any court -- especially our current U.S. Supreme Court -- may be reluctant to rule that Californians do not have the power to amend their own state Constitution as a remedy to a judicial interpretation of that very same document.
Yet the Colorado and California initiatives are alike in their essence. Each is, to quote Kennedy, "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the equal protection clause does not permit." Proposition 8 was explicitly designed to relegate hundreds of thousands of Californians to an inferior legal and social status.
Many gay-rights activists are wary of the current Supreme Court, but five of the justices who formed the majority in Romer vs. Evans remain on the bench. As with so many cases, a ruling likely would hinge on the views of Kennedy, and there is no reason to believe that his judicial opinion has changed in any fundamental way. Besides, any constitutional challenge will take years to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. By that time, the broader political change that swept over the nation Nov. 4 may have reached the Supreme Court as well.
But even if it hasn't, this 12-year-old precedent from a conservative high court could be the key to reaffirming that fundamental civil rights must be available to all citizens, regardless of race, sexual orientation or other intrinsic human qualities.
LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gray17-2008nov17,0,3307805.story)
-
Marriage was established as the norm at creation.
Who married Adam and Eve? And why isn't marriage even mentioned in the Bible until the time of Jacob?
Proposition 8 is an amendment to the constitution. No court has the right to overrule that.
The California supreme court does, if it finds that the amendment violates other provisions of the constitution.
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to your right to own guns? To defend yourself? I can point you to one that specifically says you should not resist an enemy that attacks you:
Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Especially ironic since I never claimed that the Bible was the end all to this position, regarding marriage
It keeps coming back to that, though, doesn't it? I threw the question out to everyone - you chose to respond. No one has been able to come up with chapter and verse supporting that position yet.
Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."
One MIGHT argue that gays can be "husband and wife" but Paul was pretty clear on the definition. He himself apparently remained unmarried, and thought celibacy was a keen idea (to the everlasting discomfort of an awful lot of literal-minded Catholic priests). But he recognized that celibacy wasn't particularly practical, and might even lead to sexual sins. So he said:
1 Cor 7:2 "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
It would be an awfully long stretch to suggest that this definition allowed for the possibility of same-sex marriage.
And no mention of the term marriage being reserved for the union of a man and woman anywhere in there - which was my original question.
Is an unconsumated marrage ,a marrage?
Why wouldn't it be?
-
All practical purposes can be served by secular contracts and powers of attorney that can be had already.
Mentioned that already, Plane, ol' buddy. Why should same sex couples have to go through the extra steps, extra expense, the extra time and effort required to get powers of attorney and make out wills that are not required of other couples, to allow them to have the same rights and privileges of inheritance, being able to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, or even being able to visit a partner in the hospital?
-
Is an unconsumated marrage ,a marrage?
Why wouldn't it be?
========================================
The alternative would be to declare that an unconsummated marriage was officially invalid. This means that there would have to be some sort of Writ of Consummation, which would certainly require witnesses, or any marriage could be contested as unconsummated, including those having children.
I tend to think that there would be few Americans who would want to go through this, or have their children or parents go through it.
The affair between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, by the way, was, according to the testimony of both of them, unconsummated. Since they did nothing that could have produced offspring, they did not officially have sex.
-
Is an unconsumated marrage ,a marrage?
Why wouldn't it be?
========================================
The alternative would be to declare that an unconsummated marriage was officially invalid. This means that there would have to be some sort of Writ of Consummation, which would certainly require witnesses, or any marriage could be contested as unconsummated, including those having children.
I tend to think that there would be few Americans who would want to go through this, or have their children or parents go through it.
The affair between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, by the way, was, according to the testimony of both of them, unconsummated. Since they did nothing that could have produced offspring, they did not officially have sex.
Being unconsumated is grounds for annulment . Even for a seriously observant Catholic.
In the olden times being childless was tragic , olden times being about thirty years ago.
Someone who wasn't even trying was denying the more willing partner something that there was a right to , understood in the marrage contract , and whether it was the man or woman complaining .
So you are stateing that Homosexuals just can't have sex at all? That seems more extreme than my position.
-
Marriage was established as the norm at creation.
Who married Adam and Eve? And why isn't marriage even mentioned in the Bible until the time of Jacob?
God did , his bringing them together is the first marrage.
I think Job is before Jacob in time , even if not in order by books , and who again were Jacobs parents?Grandparents?
Proposition 8 is an amendment to the constitution. No court has the right to overrule that.
The California supreme court does, if it finds that the amendment violates other provisions of the constitution.
This makes them kings then doesn't it?
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??
Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to your right to own guns? To defend yourself? I can point you to one that specifically says you should not resist an enemy that attacks you:
Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Especially ironic since I never claimed that the Bible was the end all to this position, regarding marriage
It keeps coming back to that, though, doesn't it? I threw the question out to everyone - you chose to respond. No one has been able to come up with chapter and verse supporting that position yet.
Who is bringing it there? Is the nonsecular nature of one side and the secular nature of the other assumeable? Is one side also spritual and the other side Non spritural?
Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."
One MIGHT argue that gays can be "husband and wife" but Paul was pretty clear on the definition. He himself apparently remained unmarried, and thought celibacy was a keen idea (to the everlasting discomfort of an awful lot of literal-minded Catholic priests). But he recognized that celibacy wasn't particularly practical, and might even lead to sexual sins. So he said:
1 Cor 7:2 "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
It would be an awfully long stretch to suggest that this definition allowed for the possibility of same-sex marriage.
And no mention of the term marriage being reserved for the union of a man and woman anywhere in there - which was my original question.
Is an unconsumated marrage ,a marrage?
Why wouldn't it be?
[/quote]
Back to what it is in the first place, is a marrage a business contract with government benefits cheifly at stake?
-
Marriage was established as the norm at creation.
Who married Adam and Eve? And why isn't marriage even mentioned in the Bible until the time of Jacob?
God did , his bringing them together is the first marrage.
I think Job is before Jacob in time , even if not in order by books , and who again were Jacobs parents?Grandparents?
Try and keep up, Plane. My point is that the word 'marriage' is not used in the Bible until Jacob's time. It's not used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve, or anyone else, until then. So how, then, can it be established as a norm at creation? And nowhere in the Bible does it reserve the word 'marriage' for the union of a man and woman.
Being unconsumated is grounds for annulment .
An unconsummated marriage is not required to be annulled. If both parties are happy with the arrangement, there is no reason for an annullment.
This makes them kings then doesn't it?
Nope, just makes them the state supreme court.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Doesn't say to resist, though, does it?
So you are stateing that Homosexuals just can't have sex at all?
Nope, just pointing out that they can live together in marriage (or whatever they end up calling it) and still not be committing a sin by your standards. By my standards, of course, they can be married and have all the sex they want, since sin doesn't exist.
-
>>Who married Adam and Eve?<<
God.
-
Try and keep up, Plane. My point is that the word 'marriage' is not used in the Bible until Jacob's time. It's not used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve, or anyone else, until then. So how, then, can it be established as a norm at creation? And nowhere in the Bible does it reserve the word 'marriage' for the union of a man and woman.
The wife of Jacobs grandfather is mentioned that isn't marrage?
Adam and Eve had a hetrosexual monomous excluseive sexual relationship and raised children together , what part of marrage is left out of this?
-
Pretty sure that is not what I said.
I know. What you said was "I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point."
If it is ridiculous for me to care about the use of the word marriage then it is EQUALLY ridiculous for homosexuals to care about it. Either way, it is about interpretation of the word itself. If all other things are equal, calling it a marriage is unnecessary. I can call it an Irish Jig and it will still be a legal union.
Since I consider marriage to be a sacrament from God, of which homosexual marriage would be an immoral parody, it makes perfectly good sense for me to object to the use of the term. It is no more or less ridiculous than a homosexual saying that the use of any OTHER term but marriage is unacceptable even when all other rights and privileges are extended. I consider the use of the term marriage to be conveying a sense of holiness to an unholy union. A gay person would presumably consider using an alternative term to be conveying a sense of illegitimacy to a legitimate act. EIther of these arguments might be the "correct" one, but both are equal in validity. It is no more ridiculous for me to be concerned about the emotional and social implications of the word than it is for a gay person.
If we are talking about unions that are legally marriages in everything but name, then yeah I think the name is a battle that serves little purpose.
Yes. It is ridiculous for homosexuals to keep battling about it.
But I understand it more from the homosexuals who think the name conveys legitimacy than from those who oppose it because the definition of the word as they understand it is something with which they cannot bear to part.[/color]
But that understanding is biased toward the homosexual view. It is equally logical (though equally, though inversely, biased) to say that I understand it more from Christians who think the name conveys holiness than from those who support it because the definition of the word as society has used it for millenia is something with which they cannot bear to comply. Your opinion that the Christian position (if I may style it so for the sake of ease) on marriage is ridiculous is based on your personal bias, not on reason. If we relegate marriage to the churches and leave the legal business to the government, the issue goes away.
To put it another way, if the government decides that Mormons cannot vote, I'm picking up my weapon. But if a compromise is reached where we can cast "preference indications" which will carry the same value as a vote, just as long as I don't call it a vote, I'll be out there every November casting my preference indication with pride.
-
If all other things are equal, calling it a marriage is unnecessary. I can call it an Irish Jig and it will still be a legal union.
Since I consider marriage to be a sacrament from God, of which homosexual marriage would be an immoral parody, it makes perfectly good sense for me to object to the use of the term. It is no more or less ridiculous than a homosexual saying that the use of any OTHER term but marriage is unacceptable even when all other rights and privileges are extended. I consider the use of the term marriage to be conveying a sense of holiness to an unholy union. A gay person would presumably consider using an alternative term to be conveying a sense of illegitimacy to a legitimate act. EIther of these arguments might be the "correct" one, but both are equal in validity. It is no more ridiculous for me to be concerned about the emotional and social implications of the word than it is for a gay person.
I think we are getting to the kernel at the center, there were always illicit sexual unions that were not marrage , flings, shacking up ,concubines , pimps and prostitutes, etc. there are many hetrosexual sexual relationships that draw social opprobrim.
But "Marrage" from far before the time of Christ and in cultures flung far across the globe is a socially sanctioned relationship .
In my opinion (I admit I am out of the loop so I take my own opinion with a grain of salt) it is the social approval that is desired and is so hard to be given.
-
Who married Adam and Eve?
God.
And why isn't marriage even mentioned in the Bible until the time of Jacob?
Because it was unnecessary to use that specific term. In fact I very seriously doubt that the word "marriage" is ever mentioned in the Bible, since it was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and "marriage" is an English word. Yours is a silly, semantical argument. The word testicles is not mentioned in the Bible either, yet I am sure that (to plagiarize Ogden Nash in a most undignified manner) Adam had 'em. That marriage (or whatever Hebrew word was translated that way) is not mentioned until Jacob does not, in any rational way, indicate that Abraham and Sarah were not married. Nor does it suggest that Adam and Eve were not married. The Bible also mentions only four sons (and no daughters) of our original parents. But that does not suggest that they had no more. Logic and arithmetic indicate that they must have had many more. The Bible doesn't mention all of the descendants of Israel, either. It mentions only the ones that count.
What is clear, however, from both of the verses that I quoted (and may others, which are unnecessary to make the point) is that God created man and woman, and intended them to be coupled in a manner which was to be permanent, fruitful and sanctified. The word marriage is what we call it in English today. Sexual relations outside of those bonds is universally recognized as inappropriate. It is clearly prohibited in Mosiac law (Exodus 20:14). Christ took it a step further and made even THINKING about it a sin (Matt 5:27-28).
Clearly, though the term itself may not be used from page 1, marriage was the intention of God and the practice of society right from the start.
The California supreme court does, if it finds that the amendment violates other provisions of the constitution.
No it doesn't. The people have the right to be contrary. They can say "All men are created equal, except gays." The US Constitution made that distinction against blacks for over 90 years until it was amended by the people. Indeed, the argument against Prop 8 says nothing about it violating other portions of the constitution. It simply states that the procedure used to adopt it was wrong. It does so by trying to redefine the amendment as a full constitutional revision, which it certainly is not. A revision (that is, rewriting the constitution) would require far more legal steps, including a supermajority of the California legislature, before it evere got to a vote.
But that argument is nonsense. The US Constitution itselfs contains a provision for it's own rewriting. But we have made sweeping changes to the original intent of the constitution without ever "revising" it. We have supported and then abolished slavery. We have provided for the citizenship of previous persons considered only property under the original provisions. We have given the franchise to women, outlawed and then reinstated to good grace alcohol, changed methods of electing our leaders, readjusted the balance of powers, and changed the methods of succession in emergencies. That's just what we, the people, when properly consulted have done. The Executive, Legislative and especially Judicial branches of the government have added and subtracted to the substance of the Constitution almost at will. Our country is nothing like our founders envisioned, and yet the same constitution they wrote is in place today.
It keeps coming back to that, though, doesn't it? I threw the question out to everyone - you chose to respond. No one has been able to come up with chapter and verse supporting that position yet.
You have mixed several posts in your response. While sirs (I believe) posted this particular response, I'll add my two cents. I chose to respond as well, and I believe both of my scripture quotes do, in fact, support (and rather clearly at that) the concept of marriage and its traditional definition. You have not repudiated either of them, and I have added other evidence in this post.
And no mention of the term marriage being reserved for the union of a man and woman anywhere in there - which was my original question.
Your original question is specious. The fact that there is no specific verse which says "thou shalt not call two guys gittin' it on marriage" proves nothing. Neither does the strawman argument about the Bible not mentioning gun rights since guns did not exist during any period the Bible mentions. The Bible makes the definition, purpose and practice of marriage clear.
-
*golf clap* Well Summized Poochster 8)
-
The wife of Jacobs grandfather is mentioned that isn't marrage?
Criminy. One more time, Plane...
"My point is that the word 'marriage' is not used in the Bible until Jacob's time. It's not used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve, or anyone else, until then."
Adam and Eve had a hetrosexual monomous excluseive sexual relationship and raised children together , what part of marrage is left out of this?
Several couples who are friends of mine have the same arrangement, without the 'benefit' of being married.
-
In fact I very seriously doubt that the word "marriage" is ever mentioned in the Bible, since it was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and "marriage" is an English word. Yours is a silly, semantical argument.
Say what? I looked at several translations for the word 'marriage', translated from the original texts, and it is not mentioned in any language until the time of Jacob. So Poochie, English word or not, in any language, it ain't there. As for silly, want to hear my opinion of the latter day 'discovery' of religious texts? You'll love that one.
-
That marriage (or whatever Hebrew word was translated that way) is not mentioned until Jacob does not, in any rational way, indicate that Abraham and Sarah were not married.
Now you're back to reason. I never said they weren't what we would consider 'married'; my point is that claiming some religious protection for the term 'marriage', as though it is somehow sacred, is a crock of, well, you know.
Clearly, though the term itself may not be used from page 1, marriage was the intention of God and the practice of society right from the start.
Strike the 'intention of God' bit - not everyone believes in such a being. You are left with society, and different societies have different practices. Some do not practice any sort of 'marriage' at all, some do not see homosexuality as any sort of 'sin'; all you are left with is modern western society and those similar to it. So even that argument is specious at best.
Sexual relations outside of those bonds is universally recognized as inappropriate.
See above about other cultures.
It is clearly prohibited in Mosiac law (Exodus 20:14). Christ took it a step further and made even THINKING about it a sin (Matt 5:27-28).
Which only matters to Jews (Mosaic law) or Christians, and those influenced by them.
The fact that there is no specific verse which says "thou shalt not call two guys gittin' it on marriage" proves nothing.
There you're wrong. 'Thou shalt not steal' is a definite prohibition against theft. 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' is a definite prohibition against lying. There is no definite prohibition against calling a same sex union a marriage. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Since there is no definite prohibition of the act, what is to prevent it?
No it doesn't.
We'll just have to wait and see.
-
In fact I very seriously doubt that the word "marriage" is ever mentioned in the Bible, since it was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and "marriage" is an English word. Yours is a silly, semantical argument.
Say what? I looked at several translations for the word 'marriage', translated from the original texts, and it is not mentioned in any language until the time of Jacob. So Poochie, English word or not, in any language, it ain't there. As for silly, want to hear my opinion of the latter day 'discovery' of religious texts? You'll love that one.
Sure go ahead. It wouldn't bother me. I have heard all of the arguments. It would be a serious act of intellectual cowardice, but if that's how you defend a poor argument, have at it. It will be as pointless as your insisting that marriage as a word does not appear in the Bible until the time of Jacob. Are you seriously suggesting that marriage didn't exist until Israel? That's ridiculous. Sarah and Abraham were married. Adam and Eve were married. Just because the word marriage isn't used (assuming that this is so - and I'll take your word for it) does not mean anything at all.
-
Now you're back to reason. I never said they weren't what we would consider 'married'; my point is that claiming some religious protection for the term 'marriage', as though it is somehow sacred, is a crock of, well, you know. . . .Strike the 'intention of God' bit - not everyone believes in such a being. You are left with society, and different societies have different practices. Some do not practice any sort of 'marriage' at all, some do not see homosexuality as any sort of 'sin'; all you are left with is modern western society and those similar to it. So even that argument is specious at best.
No it isn't. Your argument, as I understand it, is that Christians are wrong to insist on protecting the word "marriage." That's your opinion, but it is not based on reason. It is perfectly logical for me to insist on protecting the institution of marriage as a sacred rite - whether someone else believes as I do or not. Whether there is a specific prohibition on the use of that word in the Bible (or Latter Day Scripture, since you bring it up) is irrelevent.
<<Which only matters to Jews (Mosaic law) or Christians, and those influenced by them.>>
Who, in turn, are the ones making the argument, which therefore renders your logic circular and pointless. I get that gays disagree with me. I'm on board with the concept.
<<There you're wrong. 'Thou shalt not steal' is a definite prohibition against theft. 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' is a definite prohibition against lying. There is no definite prohibition against calling a same sex union a marriage. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Since there is no definite prohibition of the act, what is to prevent it?>>
I'm not wrong, you are making a strawman argument. There is no specific prohibition against speeding or drunk driving either. Are you arguing that such things are OK according to the bible? Your argument is not even relevent to the issue.
I think you misunderstand the position that Christians like myself take. (And I speak here, of course, only for me.) The issue is not whether God, the Bible, or our church leaders prohibit the word "marriage " from use. We are not concerned about the word, but about the institution.
I do NOT in any way approve of homosexual behavior. I do not approve of gays getting "civil unions" either. All of these things are wrong to me. I do, however, recognize the nature of American society and government. Since there are perfectly valid arguments for allowing gay people to do whatever they please I am willing to COMPROMISE by accepting and legally honoring a social contract which gives them all of the LEGAL RIGHTS afforded a married couple. UNDER US LAW gays should get equal treatment. Under God's law, however, that is not the case. God made that one up, not James Madison, John Marshal or Barak Obama. MARRIAGE IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. Free association is. Gays have no right to be accepted any more than Mormons do. Gays do NOT have a right to be married any more than they have to be baptized, receive communion or be ordained to the priesthood. There is absolutely NO right, under any law including God's, to receive a sacrament without being worthy of it. Morally that is the province of God and legally it is the province of the church. Most churches deny communion to non-members. As a Latter Day Saint, I would never walk into a Catholic Church and expect to take communion. I could not, as a Latter Day Saint, become a Baptist preacher. But if Baptists get to vote, so should Mormons. If Methodists can build a church in my neighborhood, Catholics should have that same right.
The crux of the COMPROMISE Christian-American argument accepting the possibility of civil union (whether for gays alone or for everybody) is that, while people should have equal rights under US law, ecclesiastical law is completely different, has the right to discriminate and is NOT subject to courts, legislatures or popular opinion. We also claim, and intend to continue to exercise, the right to express our opinions, vote our conscience and try to mold a society that conforms to our standards. Gays, atheists, Wiccans and Libertarians have exactly the same right, and if more people agree with them than with me, I have to live with the consequence. I will, however, strive to win the issue or go down fighting, just as I expect the other side to do.
So your argument about the word "marriage" in the Bible is a non-issue. It doesn't mean a thing. Many Christians will, and probably should, take a hard line against ANY officially sanctioned homosexual union. But if there must be accomodation made for gays, there is room for compromise on this issue. Gays who insist that "marriage" must be allowed rather than just civil unions, wish to style the mainstream as extreme in this issue. But it is they who are in fact the extremists. With the Vermont ruling that makes civil unions unconstitutional, there is yet more reason to see the sense to removing the religious issue entirely by making ALL marriages civil unions under the law. Those who disapprove of gays getting the same LEGAL rights as Heterosexuals will just have to deal with it. I also object to businesses being open on Sundays, but I'm not going to get much headway on that issue. But gays who insist that they have the same right to ecclesiastical benefits as straights are going to have to take it up with God, or at least their church. If the God Loves Gays Universal Church of Really Really Close Brotherhood wants to marry gays and the Baptists don't - the government has no business interfering with either.
-
Why cannot Christians distinguish between CIVIL MARRIAGE that may include gays, and CHURCH (holy or sacred) MARRIAGE that woud be whatever their church demanded?
-
Why cannot Christians distinguish between CIVIL MARRIAGE that may include gays, and CHURCH (holy or sacred) MARRIAGE that woud be whatever their church demanded?
I think we do.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that marriage didn't exist until Israel?
Have you been reading the thread, or just a Johnny-come-lately?
My original question was for anyone to provide a chapter and verse in the Bible that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. No one has been able to do so. My point about marriage first being mentioned around the time of Jacob was a response to your claim that it was established as the norm at creation. As I read it, Adam and Eve were naked at creation, and remained so until they violated God's rules and saw that their nudity was somehow shameful. (This brings up a side point about nudity being a true norm established at creation, but...) There is no mention that they were married, or ever intended to be married. In fact, as I said, there is no mention of marriage at all until the time of Jacob. If it was such a norm since the time of creation, why is there no mention of it until then, and no commandment anywhere that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman? I'm not saying that Adam and Eve, or Abraham and Sarah, or any of the figures from the old testament weren't living in a state we would consider marriage, and might even have been called marriage by whatever name they called it; I am saying that if it was so important that marriage were only to be between a man and a woman, why is there no mention of this anywhere in the Bible? I mean, it's detailed enough to proscribe eating shellfish, why not same sex marriage?
You can call me silly, or call it a poor argument, or throw whatever you want at it, but none of that serves to disprove it.
We are not concerned about the word, but about the institution.
Then why so much fuss over a word? THAT's the point.
If the God Loves Gays Universal Church of Really Really Close Brotherhood wants to marry gays and the Baptists don't - the government has no business interfering with either.
Ibid.
-
We are not concerned about the word, but about the institution.
So what if we rename heterosexual marriages "Bob", and homosexual marriages "Dave", and stop using the word marriage completely?
-
I'm guessing that you, as a single individual, don't have the authority or power to enact such legislation. That is the proper response, no?
-
I'm guessing that you, as a single individual, don't have the authority or power to enact such legislation. That is the proper response, no?
=============
No, I tend to respond that way when someone tells me what I should do, as opposed to what I should think.
I am all for legislation that would permit gay couples to have the same rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples this could be called marriage or civil union. I doubt that I will ever be given a chance to vote on it, though.
-
I'm guessing that you, as a single individual, don't have the authority or power to enact such legislation. That is the proper response, no?
=============
No, I tend to respond that way when someone tells me what I should do, as opposed to what I should think.
And who's telling you what to think?, what to do? Hell, your vote only counts as 1 among millions. Yet you're the one telling others what kind of car they're to have, and screw what anyone wants. Xo knows better
I am all for legislation that would permit gay couples to have the same rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples this could be called marriage or civil union. I doubt that I will ever be given a chance to vote on it, though.
Well that's a good thing then I suppose, since your 1 vote wouldn't amount to anything, anyways, right?
-
And who's telling you what to think?, what to do? Hell, your vote only counts as 1 among millions. Yet you're the one telling others what kind of car they're to have, and screw what anyone wants. Xo knows better
==================================================
I would imagine that there are millions who agree with me, and found out the hard way that a 12mpg Excursion is not a viable choice when gasoline hits $4.00 a gallon.
-
Agree is one thing. Demand is entirely another. What YOU deem someone else needs or should have is irrelevent. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions, even idiotic ones
-
Agree is one thing. Demand is entirely another. What YOU deem someone else needs or should have is irrelevent. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions, even idiotic ones
=================
When did I DEMAND that anyone not drive gas guzzling SUVs and trucks?
I simply said that it was stupid for Detroit to advertise the fool things as they did.
Freedom might actually include my right to point out that the people who peddled these things and those who bought them were idiots.
-
Agree is one thing. Demand is entirely another. What YOU deem someone else needs or should have is irrelevent. Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions, even idiotic ones
And you & your ilk have made far more than your share.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that marriage didn't exist until Israel?
Have you been reading the thread, or just a Johnny-come-lately?
My original question was for anyone to provide a chapter and verse in the Bible that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. No one has been able to do so. My point about marriage first being mentioned around the time of Jacob was a response to your claim that it was established as the norm at creation. As I read it, Adam and Eve were naked at creation, and remained so until they violated God's rules and saw that their nudity was somehow shameful. (This brings up a side point about nudity being a true norm established at creation, but...) There is no mention that they were married, or ever intended to be married. In fact, as I said, there is no mention of marriage at all until the time of Jacob. If it was such a norm since the time of creation, why is there no mention of it until then, and no commandment anywhere that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman? I'm not saying that Adam and Eve, or Abraham and Sarah, or any of the figures from the old testament weren't living in a state we would consider marriage, and might even have been called marriage by whatever name they called it; I am saying that if it was so important that marriage were only to be between a man and a woman, why is there no mention of this anywhere in the Bible? I mean, it's detailed enough to proscribe eating shellfish, why not same sex marriage?
You can call me silly, or call it a poor argument, or throw whatever you want at it, but none of that serves to disprove it.
We are not concerned about the word, but about the institution.
Then why so much fuss over a word? THAT's the point.
If the God Loves Gays Universal Church of Really Really Close Brotherhood wants to marry gays and the Baptists don't - the government has no business interfering with either.
Ibid.
In the whole bible is ther one homosexual marrage mentioned?
Perhaps this never came up.
-
In the whole bible is ther one homosexual marrage mentioned?
Perhaps this never came up.
Go ahead and bring it up. I'm told that just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it never happened, though, or that it doesn't exist - like Adam's 'nads, or the idea that the word 'marriage' is somehow copyrighted and can only apply to the union of a man and a woman.
-
In the whole bible is ther one homosexual marrage mentioned?
Perhaps this never came up.
Go ahead and bring it up. I'm told that just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it never happened, though, or that it doesn't exist - like Adam's 'nads, or the idea that the word 'marriage' is somehow copyrighted and can only apply to the union of a man and a woman.
Yet every marrage that is mentioned is a heterosexual one , if the primary definition of "marrage " is a socially sanctioned heterosexual union , then to point out again that it needs to be heterosexual is being redundant to the point of being pedantic.
As if one wre speaking of Lions , I mean the feline kind of lions.
-
Except for major figures, the Bible mentions marriages mostly in form of lineage (And X begat y, and y begat z)
Homosexual unions do not figure in here, because they are, as they say, without issue. This doesn't mean that there were no gay men in the Bible, thugh it seems probable to me that male gays were secretive, being as they did not wish to be executed, and Lesbians lived in a fairly segregated society and probably scissored one another for generations unbeknownst to the men, perhaps in the many periods when they were deemed "unclean".
-
Except for major figures, the Bible mentions marriages mostly in form of lineage (And X begat y, and y begat z)
Homosexual unions do not figure in here, because they are, as they say, without issue. This doesn't mean that there were no gay men in the Bible, thugh it seems probable to me that male gays were secretive, being as they did not wish to be executed, and Lesbians lived in a fairly segregated society and probably scissored one another for generations unbeknownst to the men, perhaps in the many periods when they were deemed "unclean".
Yes ,meaning that a homosexual "marrage" as a socially sanctioned union was an impossibility under that situation.
-
This is the way it seems to me.
Of course I was not there. For all I know, rabbis at some time or another were easily bribed and gay guys ruled, so long as they produced an heir. Unlikely, but possible, I suppose.
The Bible sees to have no stand at all against Lesbians. It was written by old rabbis, who I am guessing were not at their the wisest on womens customs and habits.