{snip}Why, then, if He wanted so badly to condemn homosexuality, didn't He outlaw it in the days of Moses? I can't think of one crime man can commit against man that isn't covered by those 10 commandments. Not one. Yet, wonder of wonders, homosexuality is glaringly absent.
'Splain that to me, please.
Linda Z
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law. Homosexuals should be pushing for an amendment modifying the 15th amendment to the constitution including sexual practices and preferences to the equal rights provisions of that amendment.
So, Linda, what does the Bible have to do with this argument, anyway?
You're right. In terms of secular law, the Bible has nothing to do with it. I didn't introduce the Bible into this discussion, however. I was simply responding to those who did.
I'll respond to your quote from Leviticus in a separate post, so that you can skip it if you like.
I didn't introduce the Bible into this discussion, however. I was simply responding to those who did.
I've been trying diligently to keep my personal/ religious/ moral feelings out of this discussion as much as possible, as well. I think the bigger issue is how this decision was made and the implications of the decision. I think as long as we keep the discussion on that level, then we can keep the discussion polite and constructive...
You got me with the Leviticus thing, Mark. Now that I think about it, the dietary laws wouldn't fall under any of the 10 commandments, either.
Now that makes me wonder if the ten commandments were given as a safeguard to a God-fearing society, while additional OT laws were given to safeguard individuals' well-being. I don't know the answer. I'm just pondering aloud to get others' input, but maybe this is the wrong place for that.
Since Jesus Christ took us beyond the law to the law of love, do those other laws still pertain, even in the God-fearing portion of socity? Not saying they do or don't, because I'm not sure. But it's something to think about.
Anyway, either way, you're right--it doesn't really have any bearing on the legal question at hand. You already addressed that yourself when you said, "Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law."
So back to that: If someone said this before and I missed it or didn't understand, can anyone tell me, from a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect?
Can anyone tell me how allowing people of the same gender to marry would be giving homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals?
"Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence?
*****
Garthella Z.,
Your questioning of the authenticity of various biblical passages is seemingly a way of maintaining and wielding plausibility for some unscriptural viewpoint concerning homosexuality. The issue you raise is speculative and is more intellectually autobiographical than historical.
From an evangelical viewpoint, a detestable thing about the affirming revisionism practiced by some church folks is that such revisionism denies both Law and Gospel. Ministering such a thing as affirmation to a homosexual in his sin is an act against both the condemnation and the grace that is ministered through the Scriptures.
There is no conviction concerning sin ministered where the sinner is affirmed and his sin denied.
There is no need for the atonement and forgiveness that is in the Gospel for a person who refuses to repent from affections and practices that are not sin.
Linda, Dovey, Abi... :D--> You all are saying things I want to say....and doing soooooo much better.
*******
A point I ponder sometimes...
People want to say that god set things up a certain way "in the beginning" and that way hasn't changed since then. It's been said here often that god created "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Frank" (or some variant thereof) and that it was so they could go forth and multiply.
OK. Logical. At first blush.
But with whom did they "multiply"?
The only logical answer if one relies soley upon the bible is with each other, with their children, and their children with one another.
Somebody ought to get our modern day laws in alignment and harmony with the word...
Cynic - you attack Dr Truluck's site without citing one example of where you disagree. It obviously sticks in your craw. I do not read his site the way you do.
The American Psychologist Associsation has ruled that Homosexuality is not aberrant behaviour so I will not be drawn into your attempt to link it with those that are. It's a red herring.
Mark - the full faith and credit clause is not applicable unless and until DOMA is overruled by the Supreme Court. I am sorry that your blood should be boiling - that is an emotional reaction. Others have had boiling blood for a very long time about things they had no control over.
No doubt the abolutionist's blood boiled over the Dredd-Scott case and the KKKs did when full civil rights was finally granted. That's life.
From a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect?
From a legal perspective, nothing prevents it. But, nothing requires it either.
Rights or priviledges...there is a big difference.
Our rights evolve from the US Constitution. The rights of the resident of a state evolve from that state's constitution as well as the US Constitution. There are certain things that are listed as "rights." Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, etc. However, and this is important, the way that those "rights" are listed is in terms of a limitation of governmental power. If we want to further limit governmental power (to guarantee people's rights), there is a mechanism to do so. That mechanism is through the constitutional amendment process, contained in article 5 of the Constitution. (Each state also has a process for their constitution)
With the exception of the limitations put on government by the constitution, the legislative branch of whatever level can basically pass any law that they choose, consistent with the roles defined by the constitution that establishes the legislature.
This may sound silly, but literally, if a legislature wants to pass a law forcing everybody in that state to wear purple on the third Thursday of a month, they can, provided that the state constitution doesn't prohibit it. That's the source of a lot of the strange "blue laws" you hear about.
The functions of the courts in this area is to interpret those laws to make sure they are not in violation of the constitutions involved.(federal and state -- in the case of state law; federal only, in the case of federal law). The courts are not supposed to make new law.
What is offensive about this Mass. case is that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has essentially created a right out of the ether. They are forcing the Mass. legislature to pass a law acceptable to this court, under the threat of the court creating a law itself if the legislature doesn't bow to its will. Freedom of sexual behavior is not a guaranteed right under Mass. law; neither is the right of anybody to get married.
If the legislature of a state chooses (not under the threat of blackmail from the courts) to modify their marriage rules to allow same-sex marriages, so be it. But, it is not the role of a court to create a right where one doesn't exist.
What really scares me here is that, if this actually happens, there will be a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution to rectify the situation. It will pass. Guaranteed. If it doesn't pass in 2004, there will be an outcry. A lot of congress-weenies may be replaced if they vote against it. It will pass in the next Congress. With about 6 exceptions (CA, OR, WA, MA, HI, VT) it will pass overwhelmingly in the states (It takes 38). That amendment may be an over-reaction to the situation. I don't know if you read about prohibition, but this amendment may have a worse effect than prohibition ever had.
Mark - the full faith and credit clause is not applicable unless and until DOMA is overruled by the Supreme Court. I am sorry that your blood should be boiling - that is an emotional reaction. Others have had boiling blood for a very long time about things they had no control over.
You and I both know that DOMA is patently unconstitutional. Why even bring up DOMA? It was a political trick done to appease voters back home. It's not worth the paper and toner it's printed with. It is a very minor bump in the road.
The courts have been "making laws" since before there ever was a constitution. In fact our Constitution and our court system was built largely upon the concepts of what was onced called common law and today is usually referred to as case law. One of the "jobs" of the court for as long as there have been courts has been to try and make sure the laws are equally and justly applied to all and prevent laws and court rulings from favoring one class or individual over another.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
The courts have been "making laws" since before there ever was a constitution. In fact our Constitution and our court system was built largely upon the concepts of what was onced called common law and today is usually referred to as case law. One of the "jobs" of the court for as long as there have been courts has been to try and make sure the laws are equally and justly applied to all and prevent laws and court rulings from favoring one class or individual over another.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Without a doubt. Common law is used where there is no statutory law or constitutional law that can be applied to the situation. But, in this case, common law cannot be used in any state, because there is statutory law in place.
An example of making law is abortion. They created a right to have an abortion where none existed; in fact, the ruling reversed all the statutory law and case law that was in force up to that time.
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.
At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.
"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.
Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.
This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."
But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?
The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.
Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "
Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.
"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.
In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.
Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.
Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.
Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.
Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."
Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.
For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life."
She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.
But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.
Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.
Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."
But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."
Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said.
What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."
"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."
In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."
"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."
It also supports the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. And that gay parents can be (and usually are) just as loving, supportive and capable of raising well-adjusted children as any other parent.
OK, I haven't followed exactly what is happening or how it's happening in Mass.
Are there any articles or other information on the web? If so, it would be nice to have a link...and if that's already been done in this thread, I'm sorry for not catching it sooner.
OK, I haven't followed exactly what is happening or how it's happening in Mass.
Are there any articles or other information on the web? If so, it would be nice to have a link...and if that's already been done in this thread, I'm sorry for not catching it sooner.
quote:You and I both know that DOMA is patently unconstitutional. Why even bring up DOMA? It was a political trick done to appease voters back home. It's not worth the paper and toner it's printed with. It is a very minor bump in the road.
I bring up DOMA because that is the current state of affairs. I am not claiming that it is not a dogs breakfast as far as legislation goes but many states have used that law to amend their state constitutions. It is not unconstitutional unless and until it goes before the Supreme Court for a ruling - it is their duty to consider what is constitutional or not when challenges are brought before it. That can be a long and slow process.
And yes, I do know about Prohibition, I have cited it more than once already. Its major result was to encourage the growth of organised crime.
The posting about was animals was interesting and much in line with other things I have seen upon TV. It shoots down the arguments of those who were claiming that it was unknown in the animal world.
LCM included - he once asked in a meeting I was at if anybody had heard of a gay kangaroo. Pity I didn't have material like this to throw in his face at the time.
People keep wanting to make this an equal rights issue. It's not. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences.
Unmarried people are free to join in relationships, cohabit, have children, build homes together, buy personal or real property together, etc. They are free to enter into contracts together, name others of their choice as beneficiaries, heirs, medical decision makers, and other such things. They are free to open joint accounts with rights of survivorship with whomever they please. They can confer almost every privilege and power of a spouse, and even more, upon whomever they choose. There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage.
So what is marriage? It is a special, privileged institution designed to encourage, support, and protect a particular family structure that is overwhelmingly viewed as advantageous to society. From a governmental point of view, it's essentially an incentive program. In that sense, it's not unlike Zixar's military example. We offer incentives to people to encourage them to join the military, and support for them that is not offered to others. We offer even more benefits to encourage them to remain in the military through retirement. It is not illegal to not join the military, or to not make it a career, but for those who do, there are special privileges and special responsibilities. Similarly, we offer incentives to people to encourage them to marry and remain married, and support for them that is not offered to others. It is not illegal to not be married, but for those who are, there are special privileges and special responsibilities.
"There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage."
Joint tax returns.
Health Insurance - 1000Names and I live together but are not married. He cannot put me on his health insurance. However, in our situation we can choose to be married or not, this is not the case for a homosexual couple.
Social Security Benefits - same deal.
Mark,
Case law creates laws where none existed. They also overrule laws that violate constitutions.
Case law did not create abortion rights, case law said the abortion laws were unconstitutional, there is a difference. There are still laws about abortion in effect today, but these laws have been upheld as fitting within the framework of constitutions on a state or federal level.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
"There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage."
Joint tax returns.
Health Insurance - 1000Names and I live together but are not married. He cannot put me on his health insurance. However, in our situation we can choose to be married or not, this is not the case for a homosexual couple.
Social Security Benefits - same deal.
I originally wrote "right or power of a spouse" but I figured someone would quibble over two different meanings of "right" in my post. Still, none of the things you are privileges or powers of a spouse, such as I listed. I was primarily referring to a list of (shall we say?) grievances Trefor posted earlier.
Joint tax returns are an option extended to a married couple, not a singular spouse. The option of filing either separately or jointly is one of the incentives to promote marriage, like IRA deductions are an incentive to promote private savings.
Even if you and 1000Names were married, you would not have the privilege of placing yourself on his insurance. That would be his prerogative, not his spouse's. Again, covering a spouse under a health insurance policy is an incentive offered by society to promote marriage. There are private plans through which people can provide health insurance coverage for non-spouses.
Same with Social Security survivor benefits. Again, there are private life insurance options.
Okay, let's call it a privilege. I get the distinction. Sort of.
Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
(From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary online)
Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a right "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor."
So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct?
The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice. Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right is relinquished for them. They do not have an equal choice.
It reminds me of that old saying, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Why??????
Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it.
Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would.
Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences."
In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom is involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not.
Like many Midwest-reared people who grew up in the 1950-60s, I'll be the first to admit that I squirm a bit when I see men holding hands or women kissing. Even though I have gay friends, I'm still a product of my upbringing. The word "homosexual" was seldom uttered when I was a kid, and I wasn't even sure what a homosexual was by the time I was a teenager, because of the era I was living in. But my emotions and leftover prejudices aren't the deciding factors for me. My sense of fairness is.
I can't debate about whether it should be legislators or courts that have the right to decide this stuff. Mark may well be correct on that. But it seems to me that someone ought to fix this inequity. Courts, lawmakers, someone. I don't care who.
What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if homosexuals are given an equal right to choose marriage or not, and if these unions become somehow more "acceptable," that there will be some kind of an explosion in the homosexual population?
I see no reason why that would happen. I have not known one homosexual who didn't, at some point, struggle with wishing he or she could have the same attraction to the opposite sex as the majority, to "be like everyone else" if they could. So why would the numbers of homosexuals drastically increase. It's not some sort of societal "fad" that's going to spread like wildfire. It's not contagious. Your kids aren't going to say, "Hey, it's cool to be gay. That's what I'm going to be" despite the fact that they came from the womb "hardwired" to be heterosexual.
Last time I asked this, it killed the thread. So be ye warned. :D-->
I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side here with this, but could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married?
It doesn't guarantee the relationship will last forever (none do, for whatever reason).
Does it mean the union is blessed by God, and what does that mean?
With DNA testing now, one can prove who the father of a child is, so one can pursue child support should this be necessary.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
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 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 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
markomalley
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law. Homosexuals should be pushing for an amendment modifying the 15th amendment to the constitution including sexual practices and preferences to the equal rights provisions of that amendment.
So, Linda, what does the Bible have to do with this argument, anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Mark:
You're right. In terms of secular law, the Bible has nothing to do with it. I didn't introduce the Bible into this discussion, however. I was simply responding to those who did.
I'll respond to your quote from Leviticus in a separate post, so that you can skip it if you like.
Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I've been trying diligently to keep my personal/ religious/ moral feelings out of this discussion as much as possible, as well. I think the bigger issue is how this decision was made and the implications of the decision. I think as long as we keep the discussion on that level, then we can keep the discussion polite and constructive...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
You got me with the Leviticus thing, Mark. Now that I think about it, the dietary laws wouldn't fall under any of the 10 commandments, either.
Now that makes me wonder if the ten commandments were given as a safeguard to a God-fearing society, while additional OT laws were given to safeguard individuals' well-being. I don't know the answer. I'm just pondering aloud to get others' input, but maybe this is the wrong place for that.
Since Jesus Christ took us beyond the law to the law of love, do those other laws still pertain, even in the God-fearing portion of socity? Not saying they do or don't, because I'm not sure. But it's something to think about.
Anyway, either way, you're right--it doesn't really have any bearing on the legal question at hand. You already addressed that yourself when you said, "Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law."
So back to that: If someone said this before and I missed it or didn't understand, can anyone tell me, from a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect?
Can anyone tell me how allowing people of the same gender to marry would be giving homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals?
Linda Z
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Linda Z. wrote,
"Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence?
*****
Garthella Z.,
Your questioning of the authenticity of various biblical passages is seemingly a way of maintaining and wielding plausibility for some unscriptural viewpoint concerning homosexuality. The issue you raise is speculative and is more intellectually autobiographical than historical.
From an evangelical viewpoint, a detestable thing about the affirming revisionism practiced by some church folks is that such revisionism denies both Law and Gospel. Ministering such a thing as affirmation to a homosexual in his sin is an act against both the condemnation and the grace that is ministered through the Scriptures.
There is no conviction concerning sin ministered where the sinner is affirmed and his sin denied.
There is no need for the atonement and forgiveness that is in the Gospel for a person who refuses to repent from affections and practices that are not sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Linda, Dovey, Abi...
:D--> You all are saying things I want to say....and doing soooooo much better.
*******
A point I ponder sometimes...
People want to say that god set things up a certain way "in the beginning" and that way hasn't changed since then. It's been said here often that god created "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Frank" (or some variant thereof) and that it was so they could go forth and multiply.
OK. Logical. At first blush.
But with whom did they "multiply"?
The only logical answer if one relies soley upon the bible is with each other, with their children, and their children with one another.
Somebody ought to get our modern day laws in alignment and harmony with the word...
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Cynic - you attack Dr Truluck's site without citing one example of where you disagree. It obviously sticks in your craw. I do not read his site the way you do.
The American Psychologist Associsation has ruled that Homosexuality is not aberrant behaviour so I will not be drawn into your attempt to link it with those that are. It's a red herring.
Mark - the full faith and credit clause is not applicable unless and until DOMA is overruled by the Supreme Court. I am sorry that your blood should be boiling - that is an emotional reaction. Others have had boiling blood for a very long time about things they had no control over.
No doubt the abolutionist's blood boiled over the Dredd-Scott case and the KKKs did when full civil rights was finally granted. That's life.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
From a legal perspective, nothing prevents it. But, nothing requires it either.
Rights or priviledges...there is a big difference.
Our rights evolve from the US Constitution. The rights of the resident of a state evolve from that state's constitution as well as the US Constitution. There are certain things that are listed as "rights." Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, etc. However, and this is important, the way that those "rights" are listed is in terms of a limitation of governmental power. If we want to further limit governmental power (to guarantee people's rights), there is a mechanism to do so. That mechanism is through the constitutional amendment process, contained in article 5 of the Constitution. (Each state also has a process for their constitution)
With the exception of the limitations put on government by the constitution, the legislative branch of whatever level can basically pass any law that they choose, consistent with the roles defined by the constitution that establishes the legislature.
This may sound silly, but literally, if a legislature wants to pass a law forcing everybody in that state to wear purple on the third Thursday of a month, they can, provided that the state constitution doesn't prohibit it. That's the source of a lot of the strange "blue laws" you hear about.
The functions of the courts in this area is to interpret those laws to make sure they are not in violation of the constitutions involved.(federal and state -- in the case of state law; federal only, in the case of federal law). The courts are not supposed to make new law.
What is offensive about this Mass. case is that the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court has essentially created a right out of the ether. They are forcing the Mass. legislature to pass a law acceptable to this court, under the threat of the court creating a law itself if the legislature doesn't bow to its will. Freedom of sexual behavior is not a guaranteed right under Mass. law; neither is the right of anybody to get married.
If the legislature of a state chooses (not under the threat of blackmail from the courts) to modify their marriage rules to allow same-sex marriages, so be it. But, it is not the role of a court to create a right where one doesn't exist.
What really scares me here is that, if this actually happens, there will be a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution to rectify the situation. It will pass. Guaranteed. If it doesn't pass in 2004, there will be an outcry. A lot of congress-weenies may be replaced if they vote against it. It will pass in the next Congress. With about 6 exceptions (CA, OR, WA, MA, HI, VT) it will pass overwhelmingly in the states (It takes 38). That amendment may be an over-reaction to the situation. I don't know if you read about prohibition, but this amendment may have a worse effect than prohibition ever had.
I don't want to see that happen to my country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You and I both know that DOMA is patently unconstitutional. Why even bring up DOMA? It was a political trick done to appease voters back home. It's not worth the paper and toner it's printed with. It is a very minor bump in the road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
The courts have been "making laws" since before there ever was a constitution. In fact our Constitution and our court system was built largely upon the concepts of what was onced called common law and today is usually referred to as case law. One of the "jobs" of the court for as long as there have been courts has been to try and make sure the laws are equally and justly applied to all and prevent laws and court rulings from favoring one class or individual over another.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Without a doubt. Common law is used where there is no statutory law or constitutional law that can be applied to the situation. But, in this case, common law cannot be used in any state, because there is statutory law in place.
An example of making law is abortion. They created a right to have an abortion where none existed; in fact, the ruling reversed all the statutory law and case law that was in force up to that time.
This is another example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
From today's New York Times
February 7, 2004
Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
By DINITIA SMITH
Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.
At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.
"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.
Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.
This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."
But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?
The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.
Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "
Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.
"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.
In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.
Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.
Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.
Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.
Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."
Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.
For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life."
She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.
But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.
Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.
Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."
But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."
Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said.
What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."
"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."
In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."
"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Although that article is interesting, what does it possibly have to do with this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It supports the theory that homosexual behavior is not simply some satanic deviant behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
It also supports the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. And that gay parents can be (and usually are) just as loving, supportive and capable of raising well-adjusted children as any other parent.
?????????????
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
and...in which case, the legislators of the state should change the rules stating who is qualified to enter into a marriage contract.
Fine.
But that's not what is happening. It's being shoved down their throats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OK, I haven't followed exactly what is happening or how it's happening in Mass.
Are there any articles or other information on the web? If so, it would be nice to have a link...and if that's already been done in this thread, I'm sorry for not catching it sooner.
?????????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Try this one.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._deep_division/
It gives some good background.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Mark:
I bring up DOMA because that is the current state of affairs. I am not claiming that it is not a dogs breakfast as far as legislation goes but many states have used that law to amend their state constitutions. It is not unconstitutional unless and until it goes before the Supreme Court for a ruling - it is their duty to consider what is constitutional or not when challenges are brought before it. That can be a long and slow process.
And yes, I do know about Prohibition, I have cited it more than once already. Its major result was to encourage the growth of organised crime.
The posting about was animals was interesting and much in line with other things I have seen upon TV. It shoots down the arguments of those who were claiming that it was unknown in the animal world.
LCM included - he once asked in a meeting I was at if anybody had heard of a gay kangaroo. Pity I didn't have material like this to throw in his face at the time.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
People keep wanting to make this an equal rights issue. It's not. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences.
Unmarried people are free to join in relationships, cohabit, have children, build homes together, buy personal or real property together, etc. They are free to enter into contracts together, name others of their choice as beneficiaries, heirs, medical decision makers, and other such things. They are free to open joint accounts with rights of survivorship with whomever they please. They can confer almost every privilege and power of a spouse, and even more, upon whomever they choose. There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage.
So what is marriage? It is a special, privileged institution designed to encourage, support, and protect a particular family structure that is overwhelmingly viewed as advantageous to society. From a governmental point of view, it's essentially an incentive program. In that sense, it's not unlike Zixar's military example. We offer incentives to people to encourage them to join the military, and support for them that is not offered to others. We offer even more benefits to encourage them to remain in the military through retirement. It is not illegal to not join the military, or to not make it a career, but for those who do, there are special privileges and special responsibilities. Similarly, we offer incentives to people to encourage them to marry and remain married, and support for them that is not offered to others. It is not illegal to not be married, but for those who are, there are special privileges and special responsibilities.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage."
Joint tax returns.
Health Insurance - 1000Names and I live together but are not married. He cannot put me on his health insurance. However, in our situation we can choose to be married or not, this is not the case for a homosexual couple.
Social Security Benefits - same deal.
Mark,
Case law creates laws where none existed. They also overrule laws that violate constitutions.
Case law did not create abortion rights, case law said the abortion laws were unconstitutional, there is a difference. There are still laws about abortion in effect today, but these laws have been upheld as fitting within the framework of constitutions on a state or federal level.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I originally wrote "right or power of a spouse" but I figured someone would quibble over two different meanings of "right" in my post. Still, none of the things you are privileges or powers of a spouse, such as I listed. I was primarily referring to a list of (shall we say?) grievances Trefor posted earlier.
Joint tax returns are an option extended to a married couple, not a singular spouse. The option of filing either separately or jointly is one of the incentives to promote marriage, like IRA deductions are an incentive to promote private savings.
Even if you and 1000Names were married, you would not have the privilege of placing yourself on his insurance. That would be his prerogative, not his spouse's. Again, covering a spouse under a health insurance policy is an incentive offered by society to promote marriage. There are private plans through which people can provide health insurance coverage for non-spouses.
Same with Social Security survivor benefits. Again, there are private life insurance options.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Okay, let's call it a privilege. I get the distinction. Sort of.
Main Entry: 1priv·i·lege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
(From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary online)
Well, lookee there. It says a privilege is a right "granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor."
So when a couple marries, their married status affords them special (peculiar) benefits, special favor, and an advantage over single people and couples who do not enter into that legal contract. Correct?
The difference, then, is that heterosexual couples have a choice in whether they'll enter into that legal contract or not, but homosexual couples, in most states, do not have that choice. Heterosexual couples can make a lifetime commitment without the "piece of paper" if they so choose, and thus relinquish the special rights marriage would give them. For homosexuals in most of the states, that right is relinquished for them. They do not have an equal choice.
It reminds me of that old saying, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others." Why??????
Will letting homosexuals marry threaten my heterosexuality? Of course not.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my taxes? I don't think so. Just as both parties in many heterosexual married couples work and pay taxes, so do both parties in many (maybe most) homosexual couples.
Will letting homosexuals marry raise my health insurance premiums? Given the small percentage of homosexuals in this country, I doubt it.
Will letting homosexuals marry prevent heterosexuals from marrying? No. Will it take anything away from heterosexual, married couples? I don't see how it would.
Long Gone said: "The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences."
In other words, the majority rules? Sorry, I don't buy that. And a freedom is involved. The freedom to choose to marry or not.
Like many Midwest-reared people who grew up in the 1950-60s, I'll be the first to admit that I squirm a bit when I see men holding hands or women kissing. Even though I have gay friends, I'm still a product of my upbringing. The word "homosexual" was seldom uttered when I was a kid, and I wasn't even sure what a homosexual was by the time I was a teenager, because of the era I was living in. But my emotions and leftover prejudices aren't the deciding factors for me. My sense of fairness is.
I can't debate about whether it should be legislators or courts that have the right to decide this stuff. Mark may well be correct on that. But it seems to me that someone ought to fix this inequity. Courts, lawmakers, someone. I don't care who.
What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if homosexuals are given an equal right to choose marriage or not, and if these unions become somehow more "acceptable," that there will be some kind of an explosion in the homosexual population?
I see no reason why that would happen. I have not known one homosexual who didn't, at some point, struggle with wishing he or she could have the same attraction to the opposite sex as the majority, to "be like everyone else" if they could. So why would the numbers of homosexuals drastically increase. It's not some sort of societal "fad" that's going to spread like wildfire. It's not contagious. Your kids aren't going to say, "Hey, it's cool to be gay. That's what I'm going to be" despite the fact that they came from the womb "hardwired" to be heterosexual.
Good grief.
Linda Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
Last time I asked this, it killed the thread. So be ye warned.
:D-->
I'm not trying to be a thorn in anyone's side here with this, but could someone outline for me what the benefits of the piece of paper are? Is it just the financial benefits, and is this a reason to get married?
It doesn't guarantee the relationship will last forever (none do, for whatever reason).
Does it mean the union is blessed by God, and what does that mean?
With DNA testing now, one can prove who the father of a child is, so one can pursue child support should this be necessary.
Truly, an honest question on my part.
The lessons repeat until they are learned.
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.