doG Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 Another thing I've shared on this forum before is the lack of appreciation for compromise by us. What is the use for us, a group of blokes on an academic discussion board, to compromise? What function does that serve? We're not legislators, and we're not operating in the capacity of any potential consequence to law. Compromise is for politicians. I'm not sure what value compromise brings to a discussion forum, when all it does is remove key dynamics from a discussion. Arguing the heart of a given problem, whether its global warming or government intrusion on marriage, is the responsible thing to do. Ignoring it may be useful for passing legislation, creating political reality, but serves no purpose to human understanding and personal growth and ultimately keeps mankind's expectations low and uneventful. Compromise among individuals here serves to propagate a meme to others in our lives outside of this community. On the subject currently discussed it could aid the propagation of the tolerance or intolerance of gay marriage. In a society that utilizes a representative government the propagation of such a meme can ultimately affect the overall policy regarding our local topic of discussion. Bear in mind as well that many of us attempt to propagate our position as a meme across other online communities so it does make a difference in the long run.
padren Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 Forgive me if this already came up, but when it comes to the religious definition of marriage, the one thing I can't get is - who owns that definition? There have been some "rouge" (or progressive, depending on your view) priests that have performed same sex marriages, and of course many more conservative branches have condemned them, and a minority has celebrated them. What I don't get is if the religion definition means so much, who's definition(s) gets to apply? Part of it is the question of what a "religion" is - the first protestant churches didn't exactly sit well with the Vatican, they were seen as taking something that was "theirs" and twisting it. Back then the idea of a priest saying "We are Christians, but the Vatican is wrong and these things are okay/not okay" must have been as infuriating as it was baffling - a different interpretation of their holy doctrine supporting heretic views. At this point we recognize protestants as equally as we recognize the church they branched out from. We even recognize the Mormon church, as new as it is. So, if we can say "you want to believe this Joseph Smith guy was right, no problem - we'll respect your religious beliefs" why can't we say "you want to believe this priest that says the bible does not oppose same sex marriage, we'll respect your religious beliefs" in the same manner? How can we reject a religious same-sex marriage, and not be violate their religious rights? The only response I've ever gotten to that, is that marriage also has a legal definition that has standards - yet, when we talk about the legal definition, all I hear is it also has a religious definition that has standards. Not saying anyone here is saying that, but what is the way out from this circular logic?
john5746 Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 How can we reject a religious same-sex marriage, and not be violate their religious rights? The only response I've ever gotten to that, is that marriage also has a legal definition that has standards - yet, when we talk about the legal definition, all I hear is it also has a religious definition that has standards. Not saying anyone here is saying that, but what is the way out from this circular logic? I don't see how anyone can make a claim to religious rights - the Mormons who want to marry more than one wife are not allowed, so the "law" trumps religion. It's really an appeal to traditional culture, which is always changing. Age of consent, race and women's rights have changed marriage, but some tend to think of it as some unchanged union that goes back to Adam and Eve.
ParanoiA Posted December 30, 2008 Posted December 30, 2008 How can we reject a religious same-sex marriage' date=' and not be violate their religious rights? The only response I've ever gotten to that, is that marriage also has a legal definition that has standards - yet, when we talk about the legal definition, all I hear is it also has a religious definition that has standards. Not saying anyone here is saying that, but what is the way out from this circular logic? [/quote'] The answer would seem somewhat obvious. The religious definition carries no legal authority, which is the only authority an american citizen must revere. Religious authority is entirely voluntary and any of man's institutional concepts are entirely persuasive by design - so they are apples and oranges, in my opinion. I keep them separate. Mormons can have a hundred wives, religiously, if everyone wants to agree to recognize their abstract concept, but they will not be recognized for it legally. And obviously there are consequences to adultary and so forth - but in terms of the institution of marriage, the construct itself, there is no central authority for it. No one entity has any sort of monopoly on marriage - unless it is given by consent of the masses, and still carries no "force". Law does, and is defined separately.
iNow Posted December 31, 2008 Author Posted December 31, 2008 I found this interesting. http://mises.org/story/2209 George and Martha Washington never had a marriage license, and most Americans didn't need them until the mid-1800s. It is likely they would be appalled by the degree to which we have gotten the government involved in a sacred religious ceremony. Regardless, homosexuals claim to have a "right" to be married by the state, just like heterosexual couples do, and this claim has been recognized in certain jurisdictions in the United States. Since, under the "full faith and credit clause" of the US Constitution, any legally binding contract from one state must be recognized as legally binding in all others, supporters of "traditional marriage" fear that marriage licenses granted to homosexuals in other states would have to be recognized in their home states. As a result, they attempt to pass laws or constitutional amendments to protect them against this prospect, which seems rather a waste of time, since supporters of homosexual marriage will challenge state laws or state amendments, expressing their belief in "equal treatment" under the law, as supposedly codified in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. This implies that for state-granted benefits such as marriage, regardless of the traditional definition of the word "marriage," everyone should be treated equally. Despite the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment actually states, in part, that citizens shall be afforded "equal protection" under the law, and state-conferred benefits would fall under the rubric of treatment, not protection, it is likely that the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment will be overlooked by the US Supreme Court. It will be supplanted by the contemporary interpretation of "equal treatment" under the law, and then, heterosexual marriage will be history. Hence the impetus for supporters of "traditional marriage" to amend the US Constitution in order to explicitly state that only heterosexual weddings will be recognized in the United States. It seems so simple. But in addition to the salient legal facts, there is another consideration: the dynamic of political-economics. Proponents of legally or constitutionally codified heterosexual marriage state that their primary reason for pursuing their course of action is to protect children. Marriage, they say, is a contract over which we give the state control in order to protect the next generation. They cite oft-debated studies that show the best situation for the upbringing of a child is in a two-parent, male-female home. The biological parents are the best option, they say, for the healthy growth of a child. They claim that by legalizing only "one man - one woman" marriages, they promote the optimal conditions for the upbringing of a child. But that begs the question: by only legalizing the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a continuum from the worst (say, being raised by coyotes in the forest) to the possible optimal (being raised by loving, talented, brilliant millionaires) would those who could run government determine that anything below the millionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would one have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? The standard is arbitrary, and dangerous to a free society. But this is what is enshrined in the motivation for the passage of the Senate "Marriage Amendment." Many conservatives favor its passage, which seems strange, because conservatives have often been defenders of small government, or less intrusive government. They recognize that government is an artifice which places in shadow our true interpersonal relationships. They do not want the state to be considered above God. Yet, they want to make sure that at marriage ceremonies, the licensed practitioner conducting the ceremony states "by the power vested in me by the state of…." It seems strange that any religious person would feel comfortable insinuating agents of the government in a holy ceremony, and leaving the definition of the word "marriage" in the hands of the government itself. Conservatives used to have a reputation for being skeptical of government. I am again reminded of conservative hypocrisy, and I liked the strength of the authors closing comments.
iNow Posted March 5, 2009 Author Posted March 5, 2009 Good question. It's the California State Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. Also, it looks like they won't review it until March according to the article I shared. Well... It's March, and this issue is back in the courts. http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11838385 The California Supreme Court has begun hearing oral arguments on whether Proposition 8, approved by voters last November to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state constitution, will stand. The arguments, scheduled to last from 9 a.m. until noon, will address three questions: Is Proposition 8 invalid because it was a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the state constitution? An amendment — a narrowly tailored change or addition — can be placed on the ballot with petition signatures and approved by a simple majority of voters, as this measure was; a revision — a more substantial, fundamental alteration of the entire constitution — can be put on the ballot only by two-thirds votes of both houses of the Legislature. Does Proposition 8 violate the state constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine, essentially constituting an end run around the courts' duty to interpret the constitution? If Proposition 8 isn't unconstitutional and is left standing, what effect will it have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married last year? The court will rule within 90 days of today's arguments. <more at the link>
ParanoiA Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Interesting. And I guess I missed your last post on this from 12/30/08. I liked that article you posted and love those last two paragraphs. Good find.
jackson33 Posted March 5, 2009 Posted March 5, 2009 Oh my....and who is defending the people??? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html It's going to be a long 90 days...
iNow Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-reax6-2009mar06,0,1962642.story The occasion: Attorneys from both sides of the gay-marriage debate were arguing the merits -- or demerits -- of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California. The dress code: dreadlocks, nose rings, rabbit costumes, clerical collars, wedding veils, hair colors not found in nature (and some that were), rainbow stripes, American flags, suits. The demeanor: loud. "You're bigger, God, much bigger than the small religious boxes that we put you in," Bishop Yvette Flunder of San Francisco's City of Refuge United Church of Christ declared at an al fresco, pre-hearing interfaith service. "We ask you for the freedom today . . . to have our relationships boldly without fear of reprisal." Across the broad, rain-damp plaza, Los Angeles contractor Ruben Israel held in his right hand a sign that declared "Homo-sex" a "threat to national security." In his left hand was a bullhorn. "If you think God is all-forgiving and loving and tolerant," he blared, "where was the tolerance from God when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?" And so it went for the better part of six hours as attorneys argued, justices probed, demonstrators shouted and entrepreneurs hawked... Hatred begets hatred, and bigotry begets our failure as a people to do what's right. I'm so very tired of the ignorant being closed to rational, reasonable, secular arguments all because of a 2000 year old book of fairy tales written by iron age tribal peoples.
doG Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Oh my....and who is defending the people??? Which people? All of them or just the tyrants among them?
Pangloss Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Hatred begets hatred, and bigotry begets our failure as a people to do what's right. I'm so very tired of the ignorant being closed to rational, reasonable, secular arguments all because of a 2000 year old book of fairy tales written by iron age tribal peoples. No offense, but I think you may need to take your own advice there, man. At any rate, are you sure you really want to bring religion into this? Some opponents to gay marriage who aren't religious conservatives:
iNow Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 are you sure you really want to bring religion into this? Well, truly if the intent is to defeat and counter the underlying motivation of the problem, then YES! Also, I'm not "bringing religion into this." It's already the root cause implicitly, whether or not I choose to openly discuss that. As you surely recall, in this thread and the last on gay marriage, nobody was able to delineate any relevant secular reasons to ban gay marriage, yet simultaneously allow it to heterosexual couples, and all reasoning, motivations, and arguments in support of ban were motivated by religious indoctrination and biases. I'm not sure your point. I don't care who in our government supports the ban, since they so very often are just pandering to the aforementioned ignorant masses anyway, and are each religious themselves. Further, I never limited my disdain above simply to neo-cons, so really... what exactly is the point? I shouldn't be FOR gay marriage b/c Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Prez are against it? I say again. Allowing such a law in this day and age is an epic failure for humanity, and I'm truly exasserbated about so many in our populace being so closed to rational, reasonable, secular arguments all because of a 2000 year old book of fairy tales written by iron age tribal peoples.
Pangloss Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 My point was that it's not just the religious right who's opposed to gay marriage. But your last two posts went way beyond the influence of religion on this issue -- that was an outright condemnation of religion across the board. You're the topic cop around here -- I'm surprised at you. Your irrational fear and loathing for religion is clearly a different subject from gay marriage, and you can start a thread on that subject if you wish. I think it would be quite interesting. Hatred begets hatred, and bigotry begets our failure as a people to do what's right. I'm so very tired of the ignorant being closed to rational, reasonable, secular arguments all because of a 2000 year old book of fairy tales written by iron age tribal peoples. Wow. Somebody get a rope!
doG Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Some opponents to gay marriage who aren't religious conservatives: While there is some truth to this it's important to point out where these people really stand. Obama, Biden and Clinton are opposed to gay marriage but do favor civil unions. Sharpton and Jackson are opposed to both gay marriage and bans against gay marriage and have made statements against Prop. 8. Napiltano is also opposed to gay marriage and she is also against any amendment to the federal Constitution that would ban it. IMO it would be difficult to find people among the liberal set that are as vehemently against gay marriage as the religious right.
jackson33 Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Which people? All of them or just the tyrants among them? Think you know, but for Prop 8 or opposed to recognition. I brought this up, because Kenneth Star, the lead attorney 'For' headed the Special Investigation into the Clinton's, which can't be popular around here. As for tyrants, I assume your talking about the 52.2% that voted for prop 8 or oppose recognition. Ironically only 52.8% voted for Obama/Biden in California. So yes he represents them... As an agnostic, I suppose my stance is a little different and well expressed way back on this thread. If legally done, not imposed on the majority or a purpose of milking the public for benefits I see so reason why any/all states or the US Constitution should not be amended to recognize. The problem is this is a 80% plus religious Nation and it's not likely to happen anytime soon. The rush to be heard IMO, will defeat the issue for the entire group, for some time if the Supreme Court is forced to address and/or then Congress. This is NOW in progress, with at least three cases... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ei=p6KxScDzI5mktQP2jqB8&resnum=1&q=same+sex+couple+sues+federal+government&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=sKKxSdDlLomQtQOgqal7&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
Pangloss Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Think you know, but for Prop 8 or opposed to recognition. I brought this up, because Kenneth Star, the lead attorney 'For' headed the Special Investigation into the Clinton's, which can't be popular around here. Okay, rofl, now I'm really starting to see iNow's point. Can anyone babelfish the above for me, please?! Sorry jackson, I'm not trying to pick on you! But come on, man, complete sentences, please! I think I get what you're saying in the second sentence, at least -- are you saying that Ken Star was the lead attorney in favor of Proposition 8, perhaps in some court case, if I'm reading you right. No clue on the first sentence at all, man. Holy cow.
iNow Posted March 7, 2009 Author Posted March 7, 2009 He's saying that Ken Starr is currently the lead attorney in support of Prop 8 in this case, and that he's probably not popular at SFN because we're a bunch of liberal, sandle wearing, patchouli burning, tree hugging, peace desiring, science studying commie pinkos. In other words, he's flinging poo stinky on "the others" instead of arguing on merit and evidence, in addition to writing at a kindergarden level.
jackson33 Posted March 7, 2009 Posted March 7, 2009 Okay, rofl, now I'm really starting to see iNow's point. Can anyone babelfish the above for me, please?! Sorry jackson, I'm not trying to pick on you! But come on, man, complete sentences, please! I think I get what you're saying in the second sentence, at least -- are you saying that Ken Star was the lead attorney in favor of Proposition 8, perhaps in some court case, if I'm reading you right. No clue on the first sentence at all, man. Holy cow. Fair questions; First Prop 8, for or against is misleading to Same Sex Marriage or it's acceptance. The fact doG, questioned an earlier statement made 'For' meaning opposed to SSM needed. Second, During the 1990's Kenneth Star was THE polarizing figure during the investigations against Clinton and the eventual Impeachment, linking him now to an issue with no less interest on this forum (not really addressed elsewhere) was interesting. As for 'picking on' it's of no importance to me...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr iNow; I sincerely hope members of this forum note, your post is a self analysis, certainly not mine or the intended point of my comments. Since Star was not mentioned, it was intended to be news or an added bit of information to your post. Frankly I rather liked Clinton, feel those investigations were too extensive/expensive for the intended purpose and the only relevant fact produced would have come out anyway. I strongly oppose 'Impeachment' of any President, feeling self imposed exile (Nixon) would serve the purpose.
iNow Posted March 7, 2009 Author Posted March 7, 2009 While there is some truth to this it's important to point out where these people really stand. Obama, Biden and Clinton are opposed to gay marriage but do favor civil unions. Sharpton and Jackson are opposed to both gay marriage and bans against gay marriage and have made statements against Prop. 8. Napiltano is also opposed to gay marriage and she is also against any amendment to the federal Constitution that would ban it. IMO it would be difficult to find people among the liberal set that are as vehemently against gay marriage as the religious right. Thanks for offering this helpful clarification.
Mokele Posted March 7, 2009 Posted March 7, 2009 Fair questions; First Prop 8, for or against is misleading to Same Sex Marriage or it's acceptance. The fact doG, questioned an earlier statement made 'For' meaning opposed to SSM needed. Um, what? Are those sentences?
Dudde Posted March 7, 2009 Posted March 7, 2009 liberal, sandle wearing, patchouli burning, tree hugging, peace desiring, science studying commie pinkos. I take offense my friend, I hate wearing sandals. So uncomfortable. feel those investigations were too extensive/expensive for the intended purpose I slightly stand in the same field, even as a grade schooler, I felt those as flagrant violations of reason in politics, and felt Ken. Starr as a ridiculous sensationalist at the time. I don't know if my views have changed, I haven't revisited the subject As to the subject at hand, I don't see why it's even an issue politically, as has been said numerous times, there's no logical or legal reason that should deny anybody from obtaining a marriage if they so choose, and violates a fairly large quantity of constitutional rights that shouldn't even need to be questioned. Personally, I find it horrendously annoying that religion has worked its way into the political system but some tend to think of it as some unchanged union that goes back to Adam and Eve. I might have misunderstood this post, but I took the general message as the general population believing in the tradition of marriage as extending back to Adam and Eve. That's also a religious belief though, because I don't believe in Adam and Eve in the slightest. I have a few friends who happen to be couples and of the same sex - they're actually not interested in getting married whatsoever, but they've been protesting the gay community rights for a very long time simply so that they have the rights like everyone else does. They don't want to be married, but if they ever did want to, they don't see why someone else's beliefs should get in the way. It may be completely irrelevant, but I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.— Voltaire 1
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 I might have misunderstood this post, but I took the general message as the general population believing in the tradition of marriage as extending back to Adam and Eve. That's also a religious belief though, because I don't believe in Adam and Eve in the slightest. Maybe it has been too long since I read the fairytale but I don't recall Adam and Eve ever getting married, the shameless wanton whores.
Dudde Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Maybe it has been too long since I read the fairytale but I don't recall Adam and Eve ever getting married, the shameless wanton whores. Such dirty words to describe the founders of our race I don't actually remember them being married either, but they ran around naked for a bit.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 I don't remember Adam and Eve getting married either, but take offense at the word "whore". Eve was Adam's "companion"
iNow Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 And this gives a good reason why Adam and Steve cannot marry... why, exactly?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now