Thread Options 
|
#163493 - 03/04/04 04:34 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,719
PA
|
Quote:
If the government ties religious beliefs into the law, are they not then forcing those beliefs onto me, which is exactly what the First Amendment seeks to prevent.
All morality is rooted in something other than law. For many people the source of authority is their faith, and all major faiths (even the 'non-faith-faiths' like secular humanism) agree on the basics of morality, which have also become law. Don't murder, don't steal, etc. Where the waters get muddied is at the point where various sources of authority diverge, and we do not all agree on what is moral. Further compounding the problem is that we do not all agree on government's role in legislating morality. (Jefferson and Madison were also proponents of a small, unintrusive federal government.) As I have said before, I do not believe this is a Washington issue at all. But the flip side of that coin is that Washington is not trying to criminalize homosexual behavior, but reiterate what marriage is. For reasons that we both stated, this debate will never go away, no matter what decisions are made in the short term. Now there is one possible (and admittedly cynical) solution that Washington could consider (disclaimer: I am not necessisarily advocating this solution, just presenting it.):
Reform our tax code to either a flat tax or national consumption tax model, and establish universal healthcare. End result: marriage is irrelevant, at least from Washington's point of view. Then government can get out of the marriage debate once and for all.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163494 - 03/04/04 04:41 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
100 Club
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 234
|
Again, not to inject myself into this debate, but I do have an interesting historical note. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as thereafter, Massachusetts had an established state religion. It kind of casts some light on the historical debate. Jefferson was actually somewhat appalled by the Constitution produced by the Convention, which was carefully held while he was away serving as ambassador to France. Patrick Henry was reportedly very offended that the document started with "We the people..." and not "We the States..." All of which trivia just goes to show you that you have to be careful relying on some history and not gleaning all the details. Again, I don't intend to engage in the debate here, although I must say that it has remained generally civilized.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163495 - 03/04/04 04:56 PM
Just Another Thought
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 606
New England
|
Quote:
It's disingenuous to claim those rights, conferred by the Creator, and then ignore the guidelines set down concerning the use of those rights (also given by the Creator).
Which "creator" are you referring to? God? Allah? Yahweh? We have so many religions here in the United States. I asked about a "big book of rules" and I was offered many different versions, all of them being the Bible. Ultimately, Christianity is based upon compassion and love; how odd these principles are lost in the haughty presumptions that one way is good (right) and the other is evil (wrong) because the Bible says so.
Last time I checked, divinity is not achieved by cramping another’s style. Christians of pre-Constantine Rome were persecuted, not because they were Christians, but because they refused to recognize the divine nature of the Caesars. They wanted to practice their religion in a pure form, without having the sin of worshipping another God on their conscience and who could blame them? Such a trespass was against the crux of their religion. Recognizing a political problem on their hands, the Caesars put disobedient Christians to death. Some died as martyrs, others did not. The fact of the matter is, Christians challenged the political authority of the time because they did not want what was handed to them. They could have avoided persecution and death if they settled to recognize the Caesars’ divine power. They didn’t and Rome reacted violently in order to maintain political power. Eventually, Constantine embraced Christianity. Suddenly, Christians found themselves in power.
Fast forward. Now, gays want to marry, but a lot of people are resisting the idea, most offering their Christian values as the reason why. Is the past so soon forgotten? Now, a Christian majority assuming secular power casts judgment down. “If gays marry, the moral fabric of society will unravel. Incestuous couples will be able procreate and polygamists will once again have multiple wives.”
Perhaps the only solace I can take is that those who support gay marriage will not accept excuses and laws based upon religious slants that are not accepted universally. In addition, those who support gay marriage will not accept that separate is equal. Though it might take years, in the end, gays will have the right to be married in this country in a very real, and legally binding sense.
One may say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there exist only different conceptions of good. Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts in the interests of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it in a different way. Consequently men drown, slay, and kill one another in the interests of good. - Gurdjieff
Can anyone find the Monty Python quote in my post? 
_________________________
Respect It.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163496 - 03/04/04 05:08 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Actually, you could take it one step further. The true libertarians believe in freedom of thoughts, action, and in being a morally unrestrained, dissolute person. Except for murder, anything goes. No marital restraints, no substance-abuse restraints. No cultural restraints. No morality whatsoever. I say we go for complete cultural breakdown and adopt the mores of the Romans and Barbarians in 450 BC. Barbaric is the way to go.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163497 - 03/04/04 05:37 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
100 Club
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 128
Penna.
|
Quote:
"And the biological truth is that it takes one man and one woman to create a family."
So are you saying that my husband and I must have children in order to be a family?
Some gay people have children, bio- or adopted. Are they not families?
I believe it takes 1 man 1 woman to procreate, not necessarily make a family. And I do believe that procreation is an important issue in all this. Yes gay/lesbians have rights and can be in love and can get married and can raise children, but can they produce children. No. They will need to rely on outside sources to do such. And in this day and age they have many otions.
I believe that this is another stepping stone to our future. Because of my upbringing and personal beliefs, I do not agree with gay/lesbian relationships, but I cannot deny them their rights to live in this country with the same rights I have.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163498 - 03/04/04 05:50 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Can anyone find the Monty Python quote in my post?
Was Monty Python gay?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163499 - 03/04/04 05:58 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment *DELETED*
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Post deleted by zaibatsu
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163502 - 03/04/04 07:05 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Quote:
The true libertarians believe in freedom of thoughts, action, and in being a morally unrestrained, dissolute person. Except for murder, anything goes
First BS! I'm going to withhold all of the other comments that kind of stupid line incites in my mind.
Second, Jello and Chi, very good points, very well spoken. I completely agree with your views.
Third, why is it when someone brings up something like gays being allowed the equal ability to marry people have to bring out debate the issue using words like incest, murder, rape, molestation, etc, etc, etc? We're talking about the ability for two individuals in a loving relationship wishing to make a public and personal commitment to each other. Sanctioned by their church and state. The need to compare this ability to morally irreprehensible acts that wouldn't be condoned by any sane man or woman to this simple act of commitment are ludicrous and completely inappropriate.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163503 - 03/04/04 07:05 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Chi......
So what I hear you saying is that the Christians, who were in a minority, were persecuted by the Ceaser’s for believing in Christianity? Just like the gays, who are in a minority, are now being persecuted for their rights by Christians? And in time to come, they will win like the Christians won eventually? So if I follow the logic, the world will in time to come be ruled by gays (like it’s not now the way it seems) and they will win their struggle just like the Christians did? And we should all look forward to the day that happens? Everyone will be gay, like everyone turned to Christianity? So tell me one thing, where will we get more gays if we can’t consummate and procreate? Wouldn’t, in time to come, the whole community become extinct? Does cloning become an option then? In case you haven’t heard it yet, this seems to be a “white” issue – the rest of the religions do not condone this. So it would be safe to conclude that the “white” race will eventually wipe itself off from the face of the earth and the world will once again be ruled by – that’s great news – Islam will flourish once again – come back in 100 years and talk to me about first amendment – the first amendment as prescribed in the Koran.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163504 - 03/04/04 07:06 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Chi......
So what I hear you saying is that the Christians, who were in a minority, were persecuted by the Ceaser’s for believing in Christianity? Just like the gays, who are in a minority, are now being persecuted for their rights by Christians? And in time to come, they will win like the Christians won eventually? So if I follow the logic, the world will in time to come be ruled by gays (like it’s not now the way it seems) and they will win their struggle just like the Christians did? And we should all look forward to the day that happens? Everyone will be gay, like everyone turned to Christianity? So tell me one thing, where will we get more gays if we can’t consummate and procreate? Wouldn’t, in time to come, the whole community become extinct? Does cloning become an option then? In case you haven’t heard it yet, this seems to be a “white” issue – the rest of the religions do not condone this. So it would be safe to conclude that the “white” race will eventually wipe itself off from the face of the earth and the world will once again be ruled by – that’s great news – mogul empire will flourish once again – come back in 100 years and talk to me about first amendment – the first amendment as prescribed in the other book.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163505 - 03/04/04 07:33 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,678
United States
|
Quote:
Third, why is it when someone brings up something like gays being allowed the equal ability to marry people have to bring out debate the issue using words like incest, murder, rape, molestation, etc, etc, etc? We're talking about the ability for two individuals in a loving relationship wishing to make a public and personal commitment to each other. Sanctioned by their church and state. The need to compare this ability to morally irreprehensible acts that wouldn't be condoned by any sane man or woman to this simple act of commitment are ludicrous and completely inappropriate.
Look, I don't think anyone here is accusing gays of being incestuous or polygamist, what I am saying is that if we allow same sex marriage based on the fact that they are two people who love each other and want the same rights as everyone else, then we have set a precedent for other groups to make the same arguement. If you don't, then you have become the same thing that you are accusing the current opponents of same sex marriage of being. What you call "morally irreprehensible" acts are not to the persons involved (I am speaking specifically about incest, polygamy etc., I think Anon was being facetious with respect to murder, rape, etc.). Those people "love" each other (or so they say).
_________________________
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163506 - 03/04/04 07:50 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Dawnie, first, I think you mean "reprehensible," but in this debate it is hard to tell.
So, assuming that you do find a sterile, incestuous relationship reprehensible, who are you to judge? How did you come to that conclusion? And on what basis would you deny the people in such a relationship the "right" to marry each other?
If you find bigamy or group marriage reprehensible, who are you to judge? How did you come to that conclusion? And on what basis would you deny these people the "right" to marry?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163507 - 03/04/04 07:55 PM
Re: Just Another Thought *DELETED*
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Post deleted by zaibatsu
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163508 - 03/04/04 07:57 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Everyone will be gay, like everyone turned to Christianity?
FYI....Not everyone is Christian.
Free your mind.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163509 - 03/04/04 08:11 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Everyone will be gay, like everyone turned to Christianity?
FYI....Not everyone is Christian.
Free your mind.
My mind is as free as a bread at loaves and fishers!
Anyway, I don't have to defend my religion because I know for a fact that it was the first religion of this earth!
I consider everthing else, Islam, Christianty, Buddist etc. a cult!
So what do I care, let another cult flourish!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163511 - 03/04/04 08:28 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
There is no moral absolute; therefore, we'd be foolish to legislate otherwise.
Z - You are the man! You have truly become a libertarian! Do you feel the hippness! Don't you feel much better that you finally let go of your convictions, your values, and your principles? This is the ultimate goal of the movement -- to wear principled people down to the point where they no longer care. Now, not only will you be accepting of gay marriage, but as the incremental moral bar continues to be pushed beyond where it can be seen, who knows what you'll be accepting in the future. Welcome to the movement. Anything goes!!!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163512 - 03/04/04 08:28 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Hey guys--this has made me tired an thirsty. Come on over to Cleabatsu's, but leave your doctrine and beliefs at the door. The topic of the day is--what do you like to do on a nice sunny day! Cleabatsu's
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163513 - 03/04/04 08:33 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,353
Anchorage Alaska
|
Joker Thank you, yes I did mean reprehensible but when I'm all fired up I sometimes forget to let my brain catch up with my fingers! Z...good question I guess my line isn't as firmly placed in the sand as yours is. I don't frankly care about polygamy, again, it's not a danger to society if the partners participating are not being exploited. Would I enter into such a relationship? Absolutely not. I believe that the love I share with one person, in my case a man, is not something I could share with many men nor would I like him to share his heart with many women. But I can't really come up with an argument that would say that this lifestyle is completely wrong. Some cultures do practice this and have done so for many years. Do I think siblings should marry? No, I don't believe two gay siblings nor two heterosexual siblings should marry. I believe that this type of relationship is not healthy for the two of them nor is it healthy for society. Supporting incest in any form is harmful. If we allow the brother and sister to marry, why not let fathers and daughters? This type of thinking leaves us open to child abuse issues that we can’t condone in any way whatsoever. So my line is a bit more open than yours, but as you know, I'd go to court for you to support your ability to speak your peace and draw your own line Even if I don't agree with you, you do have a right to your own views. But I'd also go to court supporting a gay couple asking to have the same rights I have because I believe they are also entitled to have their views supported and should be equal in the eyes of the land they choose to live in. Quote:
I consider everything else, Islam, Christianity, Buddhist etc. a cult!
How very open and loving of you...and you say you've embraced a religion? Which religion is this that tells you to spread hate and intolerance for others who worship in peace within their own cultural values? I think you need to take a hard look at the values your "religion" holds dear. Most Christians who really hold the value of their God dear, will tell you that an open heart and a loving mind should be the goal of Gods children, not condemning those who worship different from themselves.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Oh who cares...I'm home with the baby.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163514 - 03/04/04 09:07 PM
Re: Just Another Thought
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I believe that the love I share with one person, in my case a man, is not something I could share with many men nor would I like him to share his heart with many women. Quote:
Dawnie, this is not being hip. Sharing is the answer. Men sharing with men, women sharing with women, men sharing with women, women sharing with men and more women. It's one big happy group all sharing...that is the answer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163515 - 03/04/04 09:37 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 606
New England
|
Quote:
So if I follow the logic, the world will in time to come be ruled by gays (like it’s not now the way it seems) and they will win their struggle just like the Christians did? Etc…
Actually, the historical point I was trying to make is this: Christians were once persecuted by a government because they wanted to worship their own way, not the way to government prescribed to them. Now, most of the people against gay marriage on this board or in the government are using Christianity (i.e. edicts in the Bible) as their moral high ground. So what does this mean? Those who were once persecuted by the government based upon their beliefs, are now using the government to legislate against those who have different beliefs from them. Does that sound hypocritical to you, because it does to me. Then again, I might be completely off my rocker, because after all, I’m an Agnostic, and according to most people, I’m likely going to hell.
Quote:
the rest of the religions do not condone this.
To name two religions off the top of my head that do not prejudice against same sex marriage: Taoism and Wicca, but I guess these don’t count because they’re not mainstream religions that have some sort of say in what is good and what is evil.
_________________________
Respect It.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#163516 - 03/04/04 09:47 PM
Re: Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 862
Mexifornia
|
What the hells going on here! Look folks – I think some fundamentalist lunatic who is into a discussion about religion suckered us all in. I don’t know about anyone else but as a Hindu I have this to say. The hallmark of my religion is its ability to assimilate and absorb new influences, like a river that flows on perennially, gathering whatever is offered to her on the way. It’s a culture that is characterized by the continuity and eclectic nature of its religious thoughts and practices, which dates back to well over 6,000 years of living tradition. No if you would allow me, I would like to milk that goat – if only it would stop flipping around. 
_________________________
If you have enough, would you know?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index