You just nailed me there with a "sound bite" which really, if you look at what I was responding to, you may understand it better. Someone, and I don't remember who, layed out a challenge to "name just one thing" that we would lose from society if there were no homosexuals. And so, I took up the challenge and "named one thing" which I had experienced while being part of this society.
So, that was sort of a flippant, yet factual response to that particular question. I hope that clears it up some... :)-->
In your response to me, you addressed a lot of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not going to bother going back through it. I'll simply state (restate) my position.
I don't care at all about how people choose to live, as long as they aren't harming others. I don't think that homosexuality or same-sex unions (formalized or not) harm anyone. I am not opposed to them. That does not automatically translate to my being in favor of establishing a new sort of civil union or modifying the existing one of civil marriage. I may or may not be in favor of either of those, depending on whether or not I see good reason, which I have not as of yet. (I do see good reason to review and modify, as needed, some laws concerning inheritance, persons to be treated as "next of kin" or "next friend", etc. Such things are included in civil marriage and could be included in another sort of civil union, but could also be addressed separately.)
I am a strong proponent of individual rights and equal protection under the law, etc. I am strongly opposed to infringing on any person's rights for reasons other than criminal conduct or mental incapacity, and that only by due process of law. None of that seems to me to have much at all to do with laws regarding civil marriage, because every individual is treated exactly the same under current laws. No law excludes any individual from marriage on the basis of sexual orientation (preference, whatever term is suitable). Obviously, I think that the four prevailing Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court were wrong. I agree with the three dissenting Justices, for the reasons they state in their written opinions, not for the "sound-bite" reasons you addressed.
My thoughts about civil marriage are not based on religious beliefs or any notion that people should not be able to live their personal lives as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others. They are based on the state's interest in promoting an environment most conducive to the welfare of children. If it were not for the likelihood of two people producing children together, there would be little reason for the state to establish the institution of civil marriage, to provide benefits related to it, or to restrict it on the basis of consanguinity.
Civil marriage may not be as effective a means of promoting the welfare of children as we might desire. (Ill-advised marriages, divorce, adultery, etc. are problems.) Still, few people would argue that successful marriages do not benefit the children of those marriages and society as a whole. Few people would argue that the ideal environment for children is anything but a home with a loving, responsible, committed parent of each sex. That is not to say that an environment other than that ideal can not be good, or that we should not provide benefits to help heads of other sorts of households to provide the best possible nurture for their children. It is certainly not to say that we should in any way look down upon them.
So it comes down to this. I think that traditional marriage, when successful, provides unique benefits to children and to society. Because of those benefits, I think that it serves the interests of the state to offer special incentives to encourage couples who are likely to have children together to enter into, and remain in, civil marriages. Any reasonable standard of determining a couple's likelihood of having children together will also admit people who will choose not to have children or who will not be able to have children, due to some physiological condition. It will not, at least at this time, admit people of the same gender.
If someone can present a convincing argument that a successful same-sex union is likely to benefit society in the same way and to the same degree as a successful traditional marriage, then I will support formalizing same-sex unions as civil marriages. If someone can present a convincing argument that legally formalized same-sex unions would be likely to benefit society in some way that is different, either in character or degree, from the benefit offered by civil marriage, then I will support establishing same-sex civil unions. Absent such arguments, I will support reviewing existing inheritance and other laws, and modifying them as necessary to address specific grievances.
Thank you for your well laid out thoughts in your last post, it has helped to clear out a lot of confusion as to where I thought you were coming from in earlier ones.
As I read it, you are basing your argument around reproduction or the possibility of it as being the sole social justification for civil marriage. Followed a close second by the raising and nurturing of the children of that marriage.
But I am not aware that this is considered to be the main argument of most people who wish to see marriage restricted. Your argument would also invalidate any marriage where it was clear that children would never ever result, for example people beyond child bearing age whose only desire is then for marrying for companionship. My own mother for example at nearly 74, widowed for nearly two years is thinking of marrying a widower of nearly 80, widowered for a smilar length of time. Barring some Abraham and Sarah type miracle, I am unlikely to see any brothers or sisters resulting from this marriage. There is no potential social benefit for them marrying.
In a civil marriage ceremony there is no requirement made by the state regarding the production or raising of children and the couple make vows or promises to each other, they are man and wife from the moment this is validated by the state.
President Bush and those others supporting a Constitutional amendment have not made the arguments from the same standpoint as yourself. They have talked about "defending traditional marriage" by it being defined as "one man and one woman." They have offered no alternatives that might seek to redress what is still a considerable imbalance in how relationships are viewed and the value and respect and the protection that are given to them.
Many homosexuals have raised children well and many heterosexuals have raised children badly, a point, I believe that you are happy to concede. But no matter how well homosexuals do this and how badly heterosexuals do this the state recognises committed relationships only when the partners are each of opposite sex.
I can only make arguments that gay marriage benefits society in a different way and on a different level to your main argument. You already concede that children may be involved in the equation, even where the raising (as opposed to biological) parents are not of different sexes, but even here you would be reluctant to accept marriage whilst not judging or looking down on them because I presume you would still se this as an imbalance. You will no doubt have seen pictures of couples at City Hall in SF who have children.
Society, however, does give value to romance and commitment and fidelity when a man and a woman is involved, even where there are no children or no possibility of children. It sees a value which goes beyond children in the couple themselves as striving for happiness and mutual support. It considers that there is a stability there that should be supported and honoured and makes no judgements regarding sex (or not) or reproduction. It may well believe that this provides an ideal background where children do appear but would be blinkered indeed if it did not accept that the reality is sometimes somewhat different.
Sometimes such benefits as you seek to see can only be demonstrated or evaluated in the doing. Research makes observations against certain existing conditions. The effects of gay mariage can only be fully evaluated in social terms when it is available in the first place. It is only very recently that has become at least possible for same sex couples to live together as same sex couples rather than with furtiveness or pretence that they were housemates etc. This in turn leads to considerations that were not considered necessary before. There is a fine balance between reaction and revolution perhaps that can resolve most problems.
The difficulty, as with most things is finding it.
I was working on this eloquent post to refute Trefor and, in doing so, I re-read the 14th Amendment. It says, in part,
quote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I always equated that amendment with race, creed, etc. But, that's not what it says. It says all persons and doesn't qualify that statement.
So, I am officially saying "oops."
Unfortunately, Trefor is right. It's legal, or will be shortly. And those states where it is illegal will, before long, have their laws overturned.
I say unfortunately because I don't like the concept and it is offensive to me. But, my opinion doesn't count for much in this case. The law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. There's nothing that any of us that are opposed to homosexual marriage can do about it.
So, sorry if I posted inaccurate information on this thread.
You just summed up the rational (rationalization) for trying to get an amendment passed to prohibit same sex marriage.
Now, as much as the concept is currently distasteful for me to even consider (the concept of same-sex marriage), I don't believe that concept is as inherently dangerous or even evil as the religious right (wrong) would have us believe.
And I do believe that there are some very eloquent and persuasive people and arguments being posed to support expanding our society's recognition of this situation as reasonable rights.
It's as divisive as the notion of abolition of slavery and granting women the right to vote. But it's going to happen and even amending the Constitution isn't going to solve anything.
It's just a natural progression, as many other things, of educating everybody. And by education, I mean, that everyone is given (generally speaking) the opportunity to get a basic public education and many more are going to college now than in generations past.
Pluralism of thought, coupled with egalitarian education, makes it inevitable.
Rather than summoning the religious fervor to further divide the country, people will do well to prepare themselves for acceptance.
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
Although I can tolerate something as legal, I refuse to consider accepting something as moral. I am more than happy to tolerate something but will not accept it.
No, I don't try to justify a constitutional amendment -- that's why I didn't advocate it in my previous post.
No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it.
"No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it."
Post-Christian --- as in PC?!?!? Look how far "political correctness" has dragged us down. This will be even worse. Not to argue, but I pray you are wrong on this. But I also have a feeling the Ammendment will only postpone, not fix the problem. :(-->
On their way to get married, a young couple is involved in a
fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting
outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process
them into Heaven. While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could
they possibly get married in Heaven?
When St. Peter shows up, they asked him. St. Peter says, "I
don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me
go find out," and he leaves. The couple sat and waited for an
answer....for a couple of months. While they waited, they
discussed that IF they were allowed to get married in Heaven,
SHOULD they get married, what with the eternal aspect of it
all. "What if it doesn't work?" they wondered, "Are we stuck
together FOREVER?"
After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking
somewhat bedraggled. "Yes," he informs the couple, "you CAN
get married in Heaven." "Great!" said the couple, "But we
were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we
also get a divorce in Heaven?"
St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard onto the
ground. "What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple. "OH,
COME ON!!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find
a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me
to find a lawyer?"
This reminds me of the question I have often asked in this thread. But no one has replied.
Why does God say there are neither male nor female in heaven? But her on earth it is so imprtant to us? I am not trying to be smart, just asking an honest question of those who are to the extreme of being against the issue of homosexuals marrying. I think this is an honest question, in order for your bible to line up with what is going on in our society.
St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard onto the
ground. "What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple. "OH,
COME ON!!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find
a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me
to find a lawyer?"
This reminds me of the question I have often asked in this thread. But no one has replied.
Why does God say there are neither male nor female in heaven? _But her on earth it is so imprtant to us?_ I am not trying to be smart, just asking an honest question of those who are to the extreme of being against the issue of homosexuals marrying. I think this is an honest question, in order for your bible to line up with what is going on in our society.
-->
LOL Fog, that's really funny!
And btw, I think your question is a valid question. And as I am not as dogmatically against the same sex marriage concept, I don't have an answer for you.
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
I'm saying that sexual reproduction is the basis of the concept of marriage, the reason it ever became either a societal or a legal institution. If it weren't for society's interest in sexual reproduction and the nurture of children, the institution of civil marriage would not exist. It really goes much deeper than that. Sexual reproduction and the nurture of children are fundamental to the existence and continuation of our species. Physical, instinctive, emotional, and rational desires and abilities to reproduce and nurture children are essential elements that influence, to a great extent, our culture, our history, our laws, our science, our art, etc.
Whether the reasoning is correct or not, the purpose of laws regarding civil marriage is to promote a preferred state, a particular family structure that society views as uniquely beneficial. Individual religious beliefs make no difference. The question is whether or not there are rational, non-religious reasons for the state to view a particular family structure as a preferred state that benefits society, and to provide incentives to promote it. In the case of traditional marriage, I think there are. Regarding other sorts of unions, I am not convinced.
quote:Sometimes such benefits as you seek to see can only be demonstrated or evaluated in the doing. Research makes observations against certain existing conditions. The effects of gay mariage can only be fully evaluated in social terms when it is available in the first place. It is only very recently that has become at least possible for same sex couples to live together as same sex couples rather than with furtiveness or pretence that they were housemates etc. This in turn leads to considerations that were not considered necessary before. There is a fine balance between reaction and revolution perhaps that can resolve most problems.
The difficulty, as with most things is finding it.
Well said. I agree with you, with a partial exception (not exactly even an exception). I agree that the effects of gay marriage cannot be fully evaluated if it doesn't exist, but it does exist in some places and that can be evaluated, given time. Also, the effects of openly gay unions in the United States can be evaluated, but that will also take some time. I think that Vermont-style (and British-style) civil unions, in States that want them, would be a good compromise for now. They would provide additional data for social researchers, which might eventually provide the basis for a strong argument to regard them as civil marriages. That is the way I would have preferred that things play out, but it's not how they will.
Edited by Guest
Another one for you biblical scholars (which I admit I am not one.) That is why I ask for your understanding.
I thought the purpose of reproduction was for the bringing forth of the Christ child as our Savior. Why we as women labor in birth. Most all churches can agree upon that I would think.
If he has already been brought forth by Mary, what is the continued purpose of reproduction? Or is this just old TWI speak?
"No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it."
Post-Christian --- as in PC?!?!? Look how far "political correctness" has dragged us down. This will be even worse. Not to argue, but I pray you are wrong on this. But I also have a feeling the Ammendment will only postpone, not fix the problem. :(-->
Well, I pray I am wrong, as well. But, I am not particularly comforted by my own prayers.
How do you figure that current marriage laws violate the 14th amendment? Specifically, how do they deny any person the equal protection of the laws? Any unmarried, legally competent person may marry any unmarried, legally competent person of the opposite gender, without regard to anything but consanguinity and some diseases. No person may marry a person of the same gender. Where is the inequality?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
J0nny Ling0
Hey there No Longer Lurking-
You just nailed me there with a "sound bite" which really, if you look at what I was responding to, you may understand it better. Someone, and I don't remember who, layed out a challenge to "name just one thing" that we would lose from society if there were no homosexuals. And so, I took up the challenge and "named one thing" which I had experienced while being part of this society.
So, that was sort of a flippant, yet factual response to that particular question. I hope that clears it up some...
:)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ahhh... JL... you homophobe!
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Try to hug me again and I'll have to assault you too!
:)-->
P.S.
I think you forgot to post something there..
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor,
In your response to me, you addressed a lot of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not going to bother going back through it. I'll simply state (restate) my position.
I don't care at all about how people choose to live, as long as they aren't harming others. I don't think that homosexuality or same-sex unions (formalized or not) harm anyone. I am not opposed to them. That does not automatically translate to my being in favor of establishing a new sort of civil union or modifying the existing one of civil marriage. I may or may not be in favor of either of those, depending on whether or not I see good reason, which I have not as of yet. (I do see good reason to review and modify, as needed, some laws concerning inheritance, persons to be treated as "next of kin" or "next friend", etc. Such things are included in civil marriage and could be included in another sort of civil union, but could also be addressed separately.)
I am a strong proponent of individual rights and equal protection under the law, etc. I am strongly opposed to infringing on any person's rights for reasons other than criminal conduct or mental incapacity, and that only by due process of law. None of that seems to me to have much at all to do with laws regarding civil marriage, because every individual is treated exactly the same under current laws. No law excludes any individual from marriage on the basis of sexual orientation (preference, whatever term is suitable). Obviously, I think that the four prevailing Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court were wrong. I agree with the three dissenting Justices, for the reasons they state in their written opinions, not for the "sound-bite" reasons you addressed.
My thoughts about civil marriage are not based on religious beliefs or any notion that people should not be able to live their personal lives as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others. They are based on the state's interest in promoting an environment most conducive to the welfare of children. If it were not for the likelihood of two people producing children together, there would be little reason for the state to establish the institution of civil marriage, to provide benefits related to it, or to restrict it on the basis of consanguinity.
Civil marriage may not be as effective a means of promoting the welfare of children as we might desire. (Ill-advised marriages, divorce, adultery, etc. are problems.) Still, few people would argue that successful marriages do not benefit the children of those marriages and society as a whole. Few people would argue that the ideal environment for children is anything but a home with a loving, responsible, committed parent of each sex. That is not to say that an environment other than that ideal can not be good, or that we should not provide benefits to help heads of other sorts of households to provide the best possible nurture for their children. It is certainly not to say that we should in any way look down upon them.
So it comes down to this. I think that traditional marriage, when successful, provides unique benefits to children and to society. Because of those benefits, I think that it serves the interests of the state to offer special incentives to encourage couples who are likely to have children together to enter into, and remain in, civil marriages. Any reasonable standard of determining a couple's likelihood of having children together will also admit people who will choose not to have children or who will not be able to have children, due to some physiological condition. It will not, at least at this time, admit people of the same gender.
If someone can present a convincing argument that a successful same-sex union is likely to benefit society in the same way and to the same degree as a successful traditional marriage, then I will support formalizing same-sex unions as civil marriages. If someone can present a convincing argument that legally formalized same-sex unions would be likely to benefit society in some way that is different, either in character or degree, from the benefit offered by civil marriage, then I will support establishing same-sex civil unions. Absent such arguments, I will support reviewing existing inheritance and other laws, and modifying them as necessary to address specific grievances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
**CITIZENLINK ACTION ALERT**
Your Help Needed to Defend the Federal Marriage Amendment
President Bush's endorsement yesterday of a
marriage-protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution was
greeted with applause by family advocates -- but it has
met with derision, and worse, from political and media
liberals.
Today's New York Times editorialized that the Federal
Marriage Amendment would "inject meanspiritedness and
exclusion" into our country's founding document. To
counter that ludicrous charge, a coalition of pro-family
groups, including Focus on the Family, issued an open
letter to the Times today.
"Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right in
America or any other civilized nation," the letter stated.
"No one wants to 'take away' some supposed right. It is
the rogue judges who are trying to create a new right."
The importance of this message getting to the people
cannot be overstated. The Times, and other liberal media,
will repeat this "discrimination" charge over and over
again in the next several days, hoping to turn the tide of
the debate their way. Only you can help prevent that from
happening.
We encourage you, this afternoon and tomorrow morning, to
help spread the truth of why marriage needs to be
protected in your local community. One relatively easy way
to do that is to call a talk-radio station in your local
market and make the case for traditional marriage.
We can help you with what you want to say -- just download
a copy of the letter we've been discussing and use that as
a jumping off point for making your case.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0030937.cfm
Then, either open your local phone book and look for
news/talk stations or flip through the AM dial until you
find one. Locate or listen for the dial-in comment line --
and then dial in and comment.
The battle to protect marriage as it's always been
understood is going to be fierce -- and your voice, and
your efforts to influence your neighbors, are going to be
key to our prevailing.
CE04BCZL
===================
Gary Schneeberger
Editor
Pete Winn
Associate Editor
Trish Amason
Editorial Coordinator
Peter Brandt
Director, Issues Response
Tom Minnery
Vice President, Public Policy
Don Hodel
President and CEO, Focus on the Family
Dr. James C. Dobson
Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family
---------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Long Gone:
Thank you for your well laid out thoughts in your last post, it has helped to clear out a lot of confusion as to where I thought you were coming from in earlier ones.
As I read it, you are basing your argument around reproduction or the possibility of it as being the sole social justification for civil marriage. Followed a close second by the raising and nurturing of the children of that marriage.
But I am not aware that this is considered to be the main argument of most people who wish to see marriage restricted. Your argument would also invalidate any marriage where it was clear that children would never ever result, for example people beyond child bearing age whose only desire is then for marrying for companionship. My own mother for example at nearly 74, widowed for nearly two years is thinking of marrying a widower of nearly 80, widowered for a smilar length of time. Barring some Abraham and Sarah type miracle, I am unlikely to see any brothers or sisters resulting from this marriage. There is no potential social benefit for them marrying.
In a civil marriage ceremony there is no requirement made by the state regarding the production or raising of children and the couple make vows or promises to each other, they are man and wife from the moment this is validated by the state.
President Bush and those others supporting a Constitutional amendment have not made the arguments from the same standpoint as yourself. They have talked about "defending traditional marriage" by it being defined as "one man and one woman." They have offered no alternatives that might seek to redress what is still a considerable imbalance in how relationships are viewed and the value and respect and the protection that are given to them.
Many homosexuals have raised children well and many heterosexuals have raised children badly, a point, I believe that you are happy to concede. But no matter how well homosexuals do this and how badly heterosexuals do this the state recognises committed relationships only when the partners are each of opposite sex.
I can only make arguments that gay marriage benefits society in a different way and on a different level to your main argument. You already concede that children may be involved in the equation, even where the raising (as opposed to biological) parents are not of different sexes, but even here you would be reluctant to accept marriage whilst not judging or looking down on them because I presume you would still se this as an imbalance. You will no doubt have seen pictures of couples at City Hall in SF who have children.
Society, however, does give value to romance and commitment and fidelity when a man and a woman is involved, even where there are no children or no possibility of children. It sees a value which goes beyond children in the couple themselves as striving for happiness and mutual support. It considers that there is a stability there that should be supported and honoured and makes no judgements regarding sex (or not) or reproduction. It may well believe that this provides an ideal background where children do appear but would be blinkered indeed if it did not accept that the reality is sometimes somewhat different.
Sometimes such benefits as you seek to see can only be demonstrated or evaluated in the doing. Research makes observations against certain existing conditions. The effects of gay mariage can only be fully evaluated in social terms when it is available in the first place. It is only very recently that has become at least possible for same sex couples to live together as same sex couples rather than with furtiveness or pretence that they were housemates etc. This in turn leads to considerations that were not considered necessary before. There is a fine balance between reaction and revolution perhaps that can resolve most problems.
The difficulty, as with most things is finding it.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You know something...I messed up.
I was working on this eloquent post to refute Trefor and, in doing so, I re-read the 14th Amendment. It says, in part,
I always equated that amendment with race, creed, etc. But, that's not what it says. It says all persons and doesn't qualify that statement.So, I am officially saying "oops."
Unfortunately, Trefor is right. It's legal, or will be shortly. And those states where it is illegal will, before long, have their laws overturned.
I say unfortunately because I don't like the concept and it is offensive to me. But, my opinion doesn't count for much in this case. The law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. There's nothing that any of us that are opposed to homosexual marriage can do about it.
So, sorry if I posted inaccurate information on this thread.
(see, I can admit I'm wrong)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Mark
the president has written an ammendment to our constitution to make same sex marriage illegal regardless of what the states decide .
It will not be recognized if He sucessfully does what America wants and I believe it will go through congress 78% are against same sex marriage!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mark,
You just summed up the rational (rationalization) for trying to get an amendment passed to prohibit same sex marriage.
Now, as much as the concept is currently distasteful for me to even consider (the concept of same-sex marriage), I don't believe that concept is as inherently dangerous or even evil as the religious right (wrong) would have us believe.
And I do believe that there are some very eloquent and persuasive people and arguments being posed to support expanding our society's recognition of this situation as reasonable rights.
It's as divisive as the notion of abolition of slavery and granting women the right to vote. But it's going to happen and even amending the Constitution isn't going to solve anything.
It's just a natural progression, as many other things, of educating everybody. And by education, I mean, that everyone is given (generally speaking) the opportunity to get a basic public education and many more are going to college now than in generations past.
Pluralism of thought, coupled with egalitarian education, makes it inevitable.
Rather than summoning the religious fervor to further divide the country, people will do well to prepare themselves for acceptance.
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rocky,
Although I can tolerate something as legal, I refuse to consider accepting something as moral. I am more than happy to tolerate something but will not accept it.
No, I don't try to justify a constitutional amendment -- that's why I didn't advocate it in my previous post.
No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i wish i understood all this
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mark says -------
"No, I figure we are going to be entering fully into the "post-Christian" era within the United States. Oh well. I may as well get over it."
Post-Christian --- as in PC?!?!?
Look how far "political correctness" has dragged us down. This will be even worse. 
Not to argue, but I pray you are wrong on this. But I also have a feeling the Ammendment will only postpone, not fix the problem. 
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"Have we thought about the consequences of legalizing gay marriages?
Divorce?
Custody?
Cheating?
Battery?
And this is not already happening in the heterosexual community??????????? Hello!!!!!!
Are you there?????? Do you live on another plantet. This is all you hear in the news. No offense, but this is hardly a rational defense.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Just a little humor:
"Can You Get Married in Heaven?
On their way to get married, a young couple is involved in a
fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting
outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process
them into Heaven. While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could
they possibly get married in Heaven?
When St. Peter shows up, they asked him. St. Peter says, "I
don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me
go find out," and he leaves. The couple sat and waited for an
answer....for a couple of months. While they waited, they
discussed that IF they were allowed to get married in Heaven,
SHOULD they get married, what with the eternal aspect of it
all. "What if it doesn't work?" they wondered, "Are we stuck
together FOREVER?"
After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking
somewhat bedraggled. "Yes," he informs the couple, "you CAN
get married in Heaven." "Great!" said the couple, "But we
were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we
also get a divorce in Heaven?"
St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard onto the
ground. "What's wrong?" asked the frightened couple. "OH,
COME ON!!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find
a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me
to find a lawyer?"
This reminds me of the question I have often asked in this thread. But no one has replied.
Why does God say there are neither male nor female in heaven? But her on earth it is so imprtant to us? I am not trying to be smart, just asking an honest question of those who are to the extreme of being against the issue of homosexuals marrying. I think this is an honest question, in order for your bible to line up with what is going on in our society.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
LOL Fog, that's really funny!
And btw, I think your question is a valid question. And as I am not as dogmatically against the same sex marriage concept, I don't have an answer for you.
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Trefor,
I'm saying that sexual reproduction is the basis of the concept of marriage, the reason it ever became either a societal or a legal institution. If it weren't for society's interest in sexual reproduction and the nurture of children, the institution of civil marriage would not exist. It really goes much deeper than that. Sexual reproduction and the nurture of children are fundamental to the existence and continuation of our species. Physical, instinctive, emotional, and rational desires and abilities to reproduce and nurture children are essential elements that influence, to a great extent, our culture, our history, our laws, our science, our art, etc.
Whether the reasoning is correct or not, the purpose of laws regarding civil marriage is to promote a preferred state, a particular family structure that society views as uniquely beneficial. Individual religious beliefs make no difference. The question is whether or not there are rational, non-religious reasons for the state to view a particular family structure as a preferred state that benefits society, and to provide incentives to promote it. In the case of traditional marriage, I think there are. Regarding other sorts of unions, I am not convinced.
Well said. I agree with you, with a partial exception (not exactly even an exception). I agree that the effects of gay marriage cannot be fully evaluated if it doesn't exist, but it does exist in some places and that can be evaluated, given time. Also, the effects of openly gay unions in the United States can be evaluated, but that will also take some time. I think that Vermont-style (and British-style) civil unions, in States that want them, would be a good compromise for now. They would provide additional data for social researchers, which might eventually provide the basis for a strong argument to regard them as civil marriages. That is the way I would have preferred that things play out, but it's not how they will. Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Thanks Rocky,
I have always enjoyed the honesty of your posts.
And by the way, what do you called three thousand dead lawyers in the ocean?
A GOOD START
Hahaha no offense to you lawyers out there.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
btw, my next career might start with law school.
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Another one for you biblical scholars (which I admit I am not one.) That is why I ask for your understanding.
I thought the purpose of reproduction was for the bringing forth of the Christ child as our Savior. Why we as women labor in birth. Most all churches can agree upon that I would think.
If he has already been brought forth by Mary, what is the continued purpose of reproduction? Or is this just old TWI speak?
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Rocky,
oops!!
:)-->
hahaha
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No problem... I've encountered the kind of attorney that belongs in that bus at the bottom of the ocean. I assure you, I understand.
:)-->
Telling the truth carries risk. I accept that risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, I pray I am wrong, as well. But, I am not particularly comforted by my own prayers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Mark,
How do you figure that current marriage laws violate the 14th amendment? Specifically, how do they deny any person the equal protection of the laws? Any unmarried, legally competent person may marry any unmarried, legally competent person of the opposite gender, without regard to anything but consanguinity and some diseases. No person may marry a person of the same gender. Where is the inequality?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.