| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 11:24:35 PM | | Yeah this is unfortunate news, but the people who are opposed to gay marriage will continue to fight it and lets hope that the court and the government and the people there will come to their senses. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 1:10:15 AM |
We had a thread on the founding fathers and the documents we rule ourselves by. Except for a few, the rest believed in God/a Creator who gave them the foundation for what they believed was right and well as far as living life went and those beliefs gave them opinions of what was not right and what was not well. Most of those men's beliefs were extentions from the Christian Bible. Those men established the Constitution...etc., on the base of those beliefs they carried within themselves. Their morals were not Tibetian, Confuscism, Buddaism or based on the Koran or ancient India texts. The morals most of them carried stemmed from the Christian Bible. That is a fact. Do the research to find out. Now the founding fathers had no idea that one day the foundation of human existance would be challenged in that who had legal rights to it and who didn't. So they saw no reason for a definement of marriage. Marriage was what it always had been....a hetro union and the rights and privileges were for them, that couple, regardless of how many times a person re-married.
I think you need to take a look at what I posted. A fact? No, I think it's still opinion.
I trust you are familiar with the term anachronism? This point of view as described above, the ascribing of a modern Christian ideal to men who lived in the eighteenth Century, regardless of their church affiliation, is anachronistic in the extreme.
The only and I mean only way we can make any determination of what they believed is on a case by case basis, first and foremost, and then by looking at the zeitgeist of the time and understanding the level and type of education of the people we are dealing with. The devotion and type of Christian belief varies with each of the Founding Fathers and can be seen in their own words...some are far more devout than others. Some are often quote mined so as to appear devout when in fact they are not in any wise similar to today's believer at all. These men were men of the Age of Reason and by contrast would find at least some of today's more Conservative believer's to be hopelessly backward and this in an age of incredible progress and science that to the FF's would seem like magic.
And no, for the last time, their morals, just like your morals, are not despite how vehemently you wish to disagree are not purely from the Christian or Jewish Bible. The very notion is absurd. How much of halakhic Law do you personally keep? How many of the 613 positive and negative commandments of the Law do you personally adhere to let alone strive to keep to? Or did they? Even Christian Law?
These men kept the Common Law of England and they were shaped by the morality of their time and the age they grew up in. We keep the laws of whichever North American nation we live in and are the products of 20th and 21st Century society. Assertions that the Founding Fathers were paragons or champions of Biblical morality are, as respectfully as I can manage, patently absurd.
They did not have to face the issue of homosexual couples wishing to have the same rights under the law as heterosexuals because in their day, religious authority still held, by fear and tradition, a primitive club and whip style of authority over the people that no longer holds sway in this day and age - at least to the same degree - that would make such attempts for recognition a death sentence. In this day and age, homosexual couples may still face bigotry and persecution, but they will not be as likely to be murdered in their beds, burned out of their homes, or prohibited legal rights under the eyes of both civil and religious authorities.
So YES, there are some considerable differences between yesterday and today.
Pfft. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 3:57:59 AM |
The only and I mean only way we can make any determination of what they believed is on a case by case basis...
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88
Presbyterian 30
Congregationalist 27
Quaker 7
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6
Lutheran 5
Catholic 3
Huguenot 3
Unitarian 3
Methodist 2
Calvinist 1
TOTAL 204 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 4:09:50 AM |
The only and I mean only way we can make any determination of what they believed is on a case by case basis... Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 Presbyterian 30 Congregationalist 27 Quaker 7 Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 Lutheran 5 Catholic 3 Huguenot 3 Unitarian 3 Methodist 2 Calvinist 1 TOTAL 204
So what are we considering Founding Fathers? The total number there is highly inflated, considering that only 54 people signed the Decleration of INdependence and only 13 signed the Constitution. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 4:11:29 AM | "So I guess my question is why can't these issues be put to the populace instead of a court?"
I'm not an expert in U.S. law, but a court's function is not to legislate according to the will of the people (that is the role of the legislative branch of government, such as parliament or congress), or run the affairs of a country (including the lives of its citizens), which is the function of the executive branch of government (such as the President or Prime Minister and their ministers/advisers), but to interpret and decide legal issues which come to them in cases. A judge is bound to follow precedent, not outside social views, including the views of conservative Christians. The issue in question is the law, rather than the rightness or wrongness of the activity in question, though moral considerations do play a factor in the administration of law.
Clearly in this judgement, the ban on gay marriage was held to be in some way inconsistent with the freedoms and rights of the individual protected by the law in the U.S., and that was probably the main reason why the court made this decision.
The Supreme Court in the U.S. might decide to overturn this ruling, especially if the U.S. Constitution is amended at some point in the future to explicitly define marriage as an act which is only legally recognised as between a man and a woman. However, given the U.S. is deeply divided over this issue (as with legal abortion), it is unlikely the necessary majority needed to make such an amendment will come anytime soon. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 10:49:49 AM |
So what are we considering Founding Fathers? The total number there is highly inflated, considering that only 54 people signed the Decleration of INdependence and only 13 signed the Constitution.
No, ezzee, it's just that the poster believes they are scoring a debating point by posting a chart that I was quite obviously aware of when I made my post, one that I even conceded the results of. The only problem seems to be a lack of reading comprehension as to the details, the ability to read between the lines and understand the difference between history as it was and history as one would have hoped it to have been.
And as you point out, the inflated numbers, and little details like the Treaty of Tripoli make it clear that while many of these men may have had beliefs in their hearts of a certain nature, they also were men of Reason. Comparing them with modern day Christians is ridiculous. By reading comprehension and literacy alone, sadly any one of the founding fathers was far far in advance of the average believer of today, in my opinion...and they didn't even have access to the internet. In any case this thread is now starting to drift off topic...might have to suggest if the poster wants to hijack it, a gun and a destination might be appropriate? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 10:55:35 AM | ^^ Alright then I'll hijack it. Remain in your seats and don't make any crazy moves and no one in this thread will be hurt. We're returning to where we took off from and we're going to sit there on the tarmac and discuss the US's biased support for Israel over the Arabs.
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/20/2008 11:00:20 AM |
It’s pretty safe to say that morality was created by religion
I am, quite frankly, astounded that anybody could say this with a straight face. Morality existed long before religion. It would, in fact, be safe to say that it continues to exist in spite of religion, not because of it.
Marriage is between a man and a woman in Christian morality
That definition is by Christian convention, not morality; morality has nothing to do with it. Whatever your religious views, nobody can morally deny others equal rights under the law.
The fact is that marriage by its own definition is between a man and a woman.
Marriage does not have "it's own definition." The fact is, you seem to be unable to distinguish between your own prejudices and facts. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:12:29 PM | N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Well many saw this one in the works. I have a problem as many with state goverments TELLING me what is good for me physically, emotionally, etc., and adapt to certain laws (pertaining to my habits or not) I now have to obey or I get a fine like helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking laws.....etc.
Here is the question.....when was the last time that anything such as a socially accepted practice that has nothing to do with injury to one's health and well being like marriage for instance, go from being a vote by the state's population for what it accepts and what it won't to a Governor (Governors in this case) telling the citizens of that state in essence....."Now I know what I'm doing has nothing to do with keeping you alive and safe from bad habits like riding a bike without a helmet or driving a car without a seatbelt or stopping you from smoking anywhere I can put a "no-smoking" sign etc., but I am changing what you think and feel marriage should be in our state to what I think it should be and mean. You no longer have any state constitutional rights in this matter to be a voice to agreement or discent. If you don't like my decision, move. And by the way....if I get away with this unconstitutional law......you have not seen what else I have in mind that will take away more of your voting rights you shouldn't of had in the first place!"
That is the summary of the non-verbal speech these governors have said to all of us in the states. They are taking away state constitutional rights....foregoing what was voted on by the populace to put into place what they deem well and correct because of their political agendas. This is no longer about homosexual marriages and are right or wrong...evil or good. This is now about governors acting as dictators to do what they feel is correct for everyone else.............Is this sinking in yet????????? | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:30:52 PM | The Supreme Court in the U.S. might decide to overturn this ruling, especially if the U.S. Constitution is amended at some point in the future to explicitly define marriage as an act which is only legally recognised as between a man and a woman. However, given the U.S. is deeply divided over this issue (as with legal abortion), it is unlikely the necessary majority needed to make such an amendment will come anytime soon.
It's about money and compensation: The US dosen't want to shell out money to it's citizens unless they have to and will do that as little as possible ie, social security, survivor benefits and other issues all of which are tied into money. The government realyy dosn't get a rats tail what any of us do as long as we send more money and don't get much back.
The government care as in "about our hearts and happiness, really? It's the money. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:54:12 PM | Montanan,
It's still about equal treatment under the law. If people who don't want to have children together can get married, then there is no functional difference between a heterosexual marriage and a same-sex marriage. If there is no functional difference, there is no legal basis for granting the privilege of marriage to one type of couple over another. The logic is inescapable, and rights trump traditions. The governor is just recognizing the inevitable and dealing with it. | |
|
| |
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/29/2008 10:45:55 AM | Equal treatment?? Equal rights??? Are you kidding???? If what you say is the central issue then why are'nt these governors pushing for equal treatment and equal rights for all forms of human marriages which would encompass hetro...homo...polygamy...bigamy?? If polygamy and bigamy are not being included within the realms of what marriage CAN be between two or more humans, you then are not dealing with equal treatment. Are you understanding?? Of course polygamy and bigamy marriages are not being equated into this formula. So that PROVES this IS NOT an issue of equal treatment concerning various forms of marriages between humans and all these forms seen as equal in the eyes of the law. That FACT goes on to prove that the issue is way beyond what is being understood. It has NOTHING to do with equality and equal rights because the laws being passed are for CERTAIN forms of human marriages while all others are EXCLUDED!!
The real issue here is pro-homosexuals want to destroy the present definition of what marriage is in all fifty states so that a new definition can be written while still excluding and not respecting bigamy and polygamy of which both types of marriage have been MORE acceptable (especially polygamy) then homosexual marriages at any given point in human history. The most popular form of human union is male to female. The next is polygamy. Then comes homosexuality and bigamy. Now of the three that have been the least accepted in our time, homosexual unions have popped up thier heads claiming to be more normal then the other two which have been just as unacceptable as itself.
This is not about equality. If you think it is you are VERY UN-READ of this issue or totally ignorant of the facts at hand. Which is it? Lets do this one more time......four forms of marriage that have been participated in since humans were around.....hetrosexual unions of course the most popular. Polygamy unions are next. Then homosexual and then bigamy. All four are various forms of human sexual unions that have went to "marriage" status in different cultures all over the earth. In our day and time one form is acceptable all the way across the table....hetro unions. So those of homosexual unions wanting to be recognized as "co-equal" with hetro unions are screaming for equal rights but disregard the other two human unions as lesser union type relationships then their own. So tell me now where pro-homosexuals are actually looking out for equal rights in this issue if they themselves are disregarding the other two forms of human unions????? | |
|
| |
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/29/2008 6:08:17 PM | Either I'm ignorant or you're reading an awful lot into it, Montanan.
The way I see it is this. People who have been saddled or blessed with a same-sex orientation have been shunned and excluded from equal participation and equal regard in society for as long as the Judeo-Christian moral code has been predominant.
The Greeks didn't care. The Egyptians didn't. The Romans didn't. The Muslims don't really. Precolonial Eastern societies didn't and many still don't. Since Roman Catholicism and its derivatives held sway in Europe, homosexuals have been demeaned and disregarded.
They want that to end, and they see the institution of marriage as the indicator that they will then truly be regarded as equal human beings under law and custom. So yes, it is symbolic for them. But it is not about destroying marriage, it is about joining in and _finally_ being a part of it.
You've been listening to too many bigoted so-called conservative Christians who are more interested in perpetuating their superstitious worldviews and the power they derive from them than they are in simple human compassion or the honoring of love.
If you continue to refuse to see what is really driving the homosexual push to be included in the human family, you run the risk of being lumped in with those bigots.
Please think it through one more time. Is it that they want to destroy what you love? Or is it that they love it too and want to take part in it just like you do? | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/29/2008 6:20:42 PM |
So tell me now where pro-homosexuals are actually looking out for equal rights in this issue if they themselves are disregarding the other two forms of human unions?????
So you're advocating Polygamy then. Because you believe that heterosexual marriage should be recognized, so therefore the other three should.
Also whats the difference between Bigamy and Polygamy? | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/29/2008 11:09:51 PM | Actually....I am an advocator of a marriage certificate for hetrosexual unions because that is how I feel it should be. Most of us in all 50 states feel that way. It doesn't deal with rights or wrongs or good or evil to me. It deals with who are willing to come together as nature allows it to happen so they (hopefully) will spend the next 18 years devoting their parental lives to raising those kids. That is who is deserving of that marriage certificate in my opinion. It's been an on-going opinion of much of the world for at least 2,000 years. Name me another tradition of humans all over this world that they all share that has lasted that long and prevailed over any substitutions.
I am not against same sex or bi relationships. I am against them trying to imitate hetro unions and claim they are co-equal in all aspects when that is a lie. Homosexual unions will never be co-equal to hetro unions any more then a hetro union will be co-equal to a homosexual union. These are two totally different relationships holding different reasons for being and existing and trying to make them seem similar is really wrong.
Now I personally feel that because there are four forms of human relationships that have existed nearly side by side since the birth of humans....all four should be given their "special marriage document" representing each type of marriage. Now that is fair and co-equal. That is what I am an advocate of. If more then one guy wants to mary a woman who wants more then one husband (bigamy) let them do it. If more then one woman wants to marry a guy and he them (polygamy) let them do it. If homosexuals want to enter into a same sex marriage or polygamy or bigamy let them do it.
But as it stands for homosexuals to be crying out for equal treatment as hetros and not to be including polygamy and bigamy in their fight.......they are showing how two-faced and single minded their cause trully is and will discriminate to the fullest against the other two forms of human unions to get what they think is well and right. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/29/2008 11:56:53 PM |
Actually....I am an advocator of a marriage certificate for hetrosexual unions because that is how I feel it should be. Most of us in all 50 states feel that way. It doesn't deal with rights or wrongs or good or evil to me. It deals with who are willing to come together as nature allows it to happen so they (hopefully) will spend the next 18 years devoting their parental lives to raising those kids.
So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married? How about marriages when the woman is past child bearing age?
Also seriously, whats the difference between bigamy and Polygamy? | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:45:14 AM | Co-equal? Separate but equal? Sort of like Apartheid? Or perhaps separate water fountains based on color, or perhaps gender (men and women differ too, last I checked).
Anyway, one battle for progress at a time is all most people can handle. I see no reason why polyamorous relationships of various kinds shouldn't also be recognized (though the application forms could get really complicated!). Perhaps when polygamy as practiced by some isn't an abusive or coercive male-dominated religiously justified union, it should be recognized. But wait! Isn't that a bit like "traditional" marriage is now?
Just throwing out ideas, here. | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:57:00 AM | If you want to throw out thousands of years of history, and take Marriage and redefine it to include whom ever a person falls in love with, regardless of sex.
Then of course you need to understand that one man or one woman, can fall in love with MULTIPLE people.
Women should be able to have multiple "husbands"
Men should be able to have multiple "wifes" | |
|
| N.Y. governor seeks to recognize gay marriages
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:51:08 AM |
seriously, whats the difference between bigamy and Polygamy?
Since "bi" means "two," bigamy is a state of having two spouses - simply a limited and specific form of polygamy.
A better question might be: since the thread topic is same-sex marriage, why is anybody even talking about polygamy? It's a completely unrelated topic, and there are other threads going which discuss it. | |
|
Home
login 
