Reply With Quote
you are absolutely right, it is so wrong that people can't marry 4 women, or minors, or their cousins.
when the will of the people is uncons utional, I imagine they'd have to
you are absolutely right, it is so wrong that people can't marry 4 women, or minors, or their cousins.
don't forget Dogs and Goats.
I imagine the reasons for all those being against the law are intrinsically different. For example, the reason why adults can't marry minors has nothing to do with the reason why people are objecting to gay marriage. Minors are deemed incapable of consenting to such a thing as marriage or sex. Is it your opinion that gays shouldn't marry because of the same reasons?
As for the cousins and the 4 wives, I really don't see why it would be anyone's business either way. If in both cases, the marriage is consensual and all parties are of legal age, then what business is it to you? really
... and box turtles.
aaaaah sweet Tine T Turtle...
Remember ... I am not making my case against the legalization of gay "marriage" on religious/biblical grounds. While such arguments work quite well in the seminary and in the church, and are somewhat useful in the public square, I don't expect the majority of people to accept them.
My argument against gay "marriage," politically, is purely secular. Right now, the burden of proof ought to be on the ones who want to legalize it. And they have not convinced the American people up to this point. The people don't want it. Liberal California even voted it down.
Right now, the only people the gay activists have been able to convince on this issue have been a few justices, and a minority of voters. Long term, that's not the way to go. Rather, you change things by expressing your ideas civilly and convincing us that you are right.
But, no, I am not bringing biblical exegesis or theology into this.
I don't understand why you think its up to them to convince you of anything? Who are you to tell them they can't get married? seriously! By the way, what are those secular arguments? I sure would love to hear them
I guess that's one way to keep them from having sex.
60 years ago, those same arguments were used to argue against inter-racial marriage, which certainly wasn't popular in 1948. Justice isn't supposed to be subject to the tyranny of the mob.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 05-16-2008 at 01:32 AM.
Nice to see some liberty being restored in that communist hole.
Last edited by Dim Tuncan; 05-16-2008 at 04:30 AM. Reason: Re-read post and realized it may have been easy to misinterpret.
In the true spirit of democracy, there will probably be a vote this fall (in California) on whether same-sex marriage should be banned.
Government, of the poeple, for the people and by the people. Fair enough.
Why let 7 decide the fate of issues, when millions deciding is surely more representative of the will of the people of the fine State of California.
and birds and alligators and whales and horse and midgets
Your facts are wrong.
In chronological order:
Hawaii was the first state to rule AGAINST gay marriage.
Massachusetts was the first state to rule in favor of it.
Arizona was the first state to vote DOWN a ballot measure which would have banned gay marriage, but they haven't passed any ruling saying its OK.
California is the latest state to rule that marriage cannot be limited to opposite gender couples.
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut have all passed various civil union bills, of varying degrees of clarity and usefulness, but none have ruled in favor of same gender marriage in their highest courts.
Yeah, that's only for tax policy.
I guess that's one way to keep them from having sex.
seriously.
lol.
Their burden is for them to convince us, the voters, that they are right. If enough of us are convinced, we vote in their favor. So far, they mostly have failed to convince us. But, as always, I'll listen to your argument for it.
And it is not only me telling gay people they can't get married. It's 6-7 thousand years of human civilization saying they can't. The burden is on THEM to show that they CAN. But I'm not saying that Steve & Bruce can't buy a house together or be "life partners." They already can be. Good for them. But don't call it marriage.
Lastly, read page one for my secular argument. Honestly, I think the biblical arguments are stronger, but the secular ones are pretty good too.
Live and let live.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't think I was entirely correct as to which states had done what. Overall, though, my point remains -- no more than 2 or 3 states have okayed full-fledged gay "marriage."
Actually, the good people of Califiornia already voted on it, in 2002. The referendum passed 61-39%. It was the judges who threw it out.
"Mob" is right! Are these judges controlled by the gay mafia? (I keed ...)
Anyway .... I've heard this argument before. Your analogy fails, however, because fertility (and sexuality) and race have nothing to do with each other. Fertility (remember the "continuity between marriage and childrearing") is not dependent upon race -- this makes race irrelevant in how the state chooses to regulate marriage. The sexuality of the partners, however, is very much relevant for the reasons I have already gone into.
At the very least, it is still on the gay community (who I do not hate, in case you were wondering) to show us why their sexuality ought to make them exempt from the regulation imposed upon other people who desire to marry (polygamy, child brides, etc.). Not only am I not convinced, but I think I speak for the majority of Americans on this one.
Lastly, I agree with your words on justice -- some things should be beyond the reach of majorities. A good example is the DH in baseball (most people want, I don't care, it's still immoral). But ought justice be solely in the hands of a few men in robes, either? They effectively stole the votes of 61% of California. How is that just?
But thanks for the thoughtful post.
"Marriage" is an entirely legal construct.
Historically, the purpose of marriage has been to deterimine property rights. In feudal times, that property ("Chattel") included women, children, and things. Marriage historically has had very little to do with religion, until the domination of the Catholic church, and its version of morality.
Today, religious marriage and civil marriage are two entirely separate things, which get conflated over and over again. Religious marriage is and should be decided by religious groups. I'm Jewish, and most rabbis won't perform a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew - by the way, that includes many Reform rabbis who will perform weddings between people of the same gender. Catholic priests won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic.
Civil marriage is a right that grants protection for children, protection for partners, vital health benefits, tax breaks, and all sorts of other benefits. Why should this civil right be limited only to some citizens and not to others? That is the very an hesis of why our democracy was founded.
Well, I think I have a unique view on the subject. Maybe someone else's mentioned this, I didn't read most the posts in this thread.
Now to convert the old terminology to something modern, it would read something like this:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Respecting" at the time meant "In regard to" or "relating to." "Establishment" is clearly more than just establishing:Congress shall make no law in regards to the system of laws of religion.
Now marriage has always been a union between a man, and one or more women, sanctioned by a religious body. I believe it is uncons utional for government to allow or disallow a marriage. It is traditionally, as far as I know, 100% a church/religious leader function.establishment:
1) The act of establishing.
2) The state of being established; settlement; fixed state; ratification of what has been settled or made.
3) Settled regulations; form; ordinance; system of laws
(definitions 4-8 not related)
That said, there should be no benefits, privileges, or penalties created by the government concerning marriage.
Government has done it's evil deed in regulation marriage like it does with everything we allow it to do. Now that it has, and there are benefits, others want what should only be between one man and one woman. As a modern society, the need for one man to have more than one wife no longer exists as it once did. Still, if that is how some people choose to live, who am I to say different. I do however have a problem with those who want to change the definition. Since others want to intrude on the traditional values of marriage, I want the government to 100% separate itself from marriage.
Also why do people want to be called married? It's an offense to many who see marriage as a special sanc y.
I may be wrong here. As far as I know, every state calls a marriage license a "union" in one form, or another. At least I have never seen one that doesn't.
I would say with near certainty, that a marriage is a civil union, but a civil union is not a marriage. Just like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
I think we need to outlaw the government from recognizing marriage. Tax wise, individual filing for every one. Just my solid belief that marriage falls into the religious category, not government.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-16-2008 at 07:35 PM.
In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage
Not that I give a one way or the other as to same sex marriage, but this is just one more example of how "elected or selected" officials trump "we the people", and do whatever they damn well please.
Anyone who thinks there is a difference in Democrats and Republicans in office needs to take a hiatus to the loony bin. Makes not one whit of difference as to who is in office they are going to do whatever is best for "them" and the people be damned.
Politics is such a s my thing. And politicians are what makes it that way. We have turned over our lives to a few "selected less evil" people and they are making hay while the sun shines.
Yeah, you bet, makes sense to me. I guess if you want
to marry your dog, the little boy next door or have two
husbands or two wives or get married at 12 it should be
allowed. I mean after all everyone has that right. I mean
can we forbid anyone their happiness? Throw the rules
out which have been established for centuries and proven
to be the way things should be done. I mean a few guys have given their life to have sex with a horse. Just think we could have saved them if we had just allowed them to
live a normal life and married their lover.
I think that we should just go the route of abolishing all
laws and customs.
I mean it is all about sex anyway, right? Family really shouldn't even enter into the equation.
Oh, by the way. I read this morning that a move to
place a cons utional amendment on the ballot has
already started in California. And if passed it will Trump
the court decision. All that is needed is a simple
majority. Big fight looming. Standby for all the
fireworks.
No its not. Judges have a responsibility to determine if something is cons utional or not whether they agree with it or not. I believe the people of California can pass a cons utional amendment if they feel strongly about it, but if you pass a law under the cons ution and it doesn't adhere to what that cons ution says then its going to be struck down and rightfully so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions