Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

[Contrarian]

My apologies for having to respond in segments.

* You stated: "The only illustration that makes sense to me is that among the strengths these men brought to government lay the same weakness of the flesh that tempts all men. Some resist the temptation, some do not. It is their strengths which are to be celebrated; not their weaknesses."

Part of their strength is the fact that they realized that we all indeed are human. In being so we are not perfect and require the freedom and flexibility to evolve as a society. I prefer not to look at these great men as having weakness, just acknowledge that they are mere humans with brilliant minds.

* You stated: "Many constitutional scholars would argue that, irrespective of the individual beliefs of the founding fathers, what they embodied in the constitution was the sole duty of the federal government to provide to the states an umbrella of protection that cannot be provided efficiently or economically by the several states. Anything over and above that is a usurpation of the right of the people of a state to decide what is best for themselves."

This is exactly the point of this thread. The states, each individually, have the right to decide if gay marriage is to become part of their law. The federal government is overstepping it's grounds in attempting to ban gay marriage as a Constitutional Amendment. You have had the final word on this subject.

POST SCRIPT:

I saved this for last as I must admit, I was a bit disappointed to see a thinly veiled personal barb, rather than sticking to the topic / issue. I wasn't even going to dignify it with a response, but thought that in an attempt to maintain an enlightened, civil and intelligent dialogue, I would do so. I do believe this is actually part of a larger discussion, but what the heck... here goes.

You stated: Perhaps not applicable to you, personally, but I have observed that when a person makes a deliberate attack upon the Church, while there can be many reasons, usually one of the following is present:

A marital problem which is unresolved; usually because the person has made no attempt at ecclesiastic resolution;

Lack of understanding the difference between an institution and a human representative of the institution;

A perceived break with the Church due to the performance of activities upon which it frowns; coupled with pride or an inordinate fear of atonement.

Failure to recall that the fallback position of the Church is to hate the sin, but love the sinner and celebrate the return of its ‘lost lambs’;

Less than a clear understanding of Church finances;

The inability to see the Church, not as a museum for saints, but as a hospital for sinners.

Is it not possible that a person would have a problem with an organization which by it's very nature was created to control what people believe and how they live their lives without some pseudo-psycho babble? Michael Moore had a problem with GM before his current notariety, are we to assume that he had a bad childhood experience with a Chevy? Obsurd.

By stating that a marital issue left unresolved, without the intervention of the church (the assumption here being Roman Catholic), is even more hysterical. To get advice from a cloistered cleric with zero real life experience and a repressed sex life that led many to the pits of child molestation is like going to an auto mechanic for a coronary bypass. At least in some of the other "clubs" the clergy has some sense of what it takes to maintain a family, a marriage, earn a living in the real world and all the pressures that go along with that. To seek marital advice from a Priest is like asking advice from a Eunich in a harem... he sees the act all the time, but has no concept of what it is all about, and more importantly he is totally incapable of doing it himself.

The individuals that represent the institution ARE the institution. If you are implying that they, as individuals, can alter doctrine, it only means they are not abiding by their teachings and they should be kicked out of their "old exclusive club". Free thinking people don't need to led around by controls, rituals and dogma imposed upon them by a group with a separate agenda.

If the church truly believed that it's role was to embrace the sinners, it would embrace the gay community and other "sinners". The PR positon plays well, but the underlying disgust and distain for these people is palpible. The hypocracy of the RC church has no limits, and those who recognize it have turned their back on the chuch as evidenced by the shrinking congregations and the critical shortage of seminarians. As you said... look at the vote of the electorate.

Your comment about church finances is also quite amusing. The church (all organized religions) is the oldest, most successful corporation in human history. They sell a very attractive product: salvation. They have a brilliant marketing plan: buy our product = eternal pleasure / don't buy our product = unspeakable pain, fire and brimstone and hell fire for eternity. They have a lock on credibility = God endorses their product. They have no warrantee issues = you have to wait until you die to see if you were beeing scammed. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!! They have used these messages to amass wealth, power and control over most of humanity over the millenia. They have murdered millions in the name of there gods. They continually try to affect legislation over democracies without concern for the other citizens who occupy the space with them. It is all about money and power. If that weren't the truth, churches all over the world would liquidate their real estate holdings, stock portfolios, treasures etc., actually feed the poor and at least try to emulate their founders. Be it a Jimmy Swaggart, The Bakkers, or the Catholic heirarchy... I don't think the true message of the lord was "live large get rich. Fleece your congregation. Don't worry the poor bastards are so afraid of going to hell that they will give until they drop." It is very sad, but the hospital for sinners is in need of a good HMO to curb their abusive practices.

Enough of my rant> I leave you with further quotes:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." -- John Adams

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Fantasea]

Contrarian:

Because of length considerations, this will have to appear in two parts. I hope they show up consecutively.

A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is inappropriate since this is a matter for the individual states to rule upon.

Agreed.

Excellent reparte on the evolution of the Judeo-Christian version of marriage which was a result of a confluence of genetic hardwiring, Darwinian evolution, sociobiological theory on survival of the species, good old fashioned sex drive, and a clash of regulatory agencies (church and state) for control to make us what we are today. But couldn't one foresee a further expansion of this evolution into the inclusion of those who by no "choice" of their own, cling to members of their own sex? Was it not so long ago that marriage between different races was forbidden by law, but very few reasonable, intelligent, unbigoted people would be distressed by an inter-racial marriage? What ever happened to "all men are created equal"?

If one agrees with the inclusion of “good old fashioned sex drive” in the genetic hardwiring, undoubtedly to ensure the propagation of humans, and the need for responsible use of same, then the establishment and retention of permanent partnerships to provide the for the care and rearing of children becomes paramount.

Down through the ages, both civil and religious authorities have recognized this ‘necessity’, and the need for the documentation thereof.

While it is true that the ability to procreate, and indeed, the desire to do so, is not present in all marriages, this does not alter the basic equation (man + women) = children. Both civil and religious authorities understand this equation. Religious authorities go so far as to declare that inability or unwillingness to procreate is sufficient grounds to grant dissolution of a sanctioned marriage.

To admit same-sex couples to the state of matrimony flies in the face of its elemental principle. The mere fact that there are those who ‘want in’ no more legitimizes their request than that of a foreign born person who wants to become president of the US, or a person with poor eyesight who wants to become an airline pilot.

I have asked the question before, but have not yet seen a response; In a side by side comparison between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘civil’ marriage, what differences exist that render the civil union less than civil marriage?

In the matter of inter-racial marriage, I take no side. Since I merely offer an observation, I expect no criticism on this point. Of course, the observations of others may differ from mine. However, what I have seen is that regardless of the races involved, the children of these unions, for the most part, find themselves to be neither fish, nor fowl, as it were, and are, at best, rejected by the race that considers itself superior, and at worst, ostracized. In any event, their road in life is generally rockier than that of those who are not bi-racial.

My Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem reference was to illustrate the power of the government, even at that time to regulate and record the activities, ownership and estates of their citizens. I was not claiming they went there to marry.

If I misunderstood, forgive me.

To respond to your discussion of the Wedding Feast of Cana, I will use your own comments as they related to Jefferson and the Founding Fathers - However, one cannot deny that his words, especially in light of the verbal gymnastics and tortured logic which are applied today to the writings of those who are no longer available to contest current ‘translations’, could well be construed to allow such foolishness as I described. For a book that was written for the most part hundreds of years after the described events, and having had the benefit of multiple editorial twists and variations, I would be disinclined to accept them as "fact" of either content or chronology. The accuracy of history is subject to the bias of the "historian". Works of fiction are meant to entertain, move and inspire the reader... nice little story Cana is.

The Bible is viewed by two distinct classes of persons. The one group believes that, although the Bible was written by persons who lived long after the occurrence of the events which they recorded, their hand was guided by divine inspiration and, therefore, there is no question as to the validity of the content. The other group views the Bible as one might view a semi-historic docu-drama produced for A & E or the History Channel.

The groups will never be reconciled. I think your comment above validates my explanation.

You state>> The Republicans recognize that there is no unanimity on the question and believe, therefore, that it’s not within the province of the federal government to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution. They correctly note that this is a question that should be decided by the people of the several states.

If this statement were true, the Republican President and many Republican members of Congress would not be seeking a Constitutional Amendment to supercede the rights of the states to decide.

I do not recall having heard Republican politicians, nor Democrats, for that matter raise the subject since the election day results in those eleven ‘blue’ and ‘red’ states where the electorate spoke with a thunderous voice.

With respect to the "old club", I respect and defend their right to resrtict full membership etc., for those who wish to belong as I would for someone who chose to belong to the Boy Scouts, Ladies Club, Black Organization etc. Whatever floats your perverbial canoe is fine with me as long as it doesn't infringe directly or indirectly on the rights of others in the community.

Rather than infringe on anyone, my observation is that where it is present, the ‘old club’ is a pillar of the community, assisting all in need, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.

Unity as American has always been foudationally supported by the fact that we are a diverse people. Yes, the great masses yearn to become "American", BUT MOST still proudly identify with their heritage in the strongest terms. I completely disagree that these people feel like "second class" citizens as a result of the hyphenization of their heritage and new found Americanism. Go around the neighborhoods of New York City and many other communities in the US and you will see proud Arab-American, German-Americans etc who revere and some even "worship" their heritage.

The Democratic politicians and their media apologists constantly preach to blacks and latinos, specifically, and immigrants, in general, that they suffer from all sorts of social, educational, and financial deficiencies that render them second class citizens, at best, and more likely, less than that. This is what I learn every time I listen to a Democratic politician referring to one of those three groups, or am exposed to a media story on them. Then the politicians assure them that the Democratic advocates are working hard to bring them into ‘mainstream’ America.

Have you heard these things, too?

The thing missing in the term Civil Union vs Marriage is the word EQUALITY

Please list for me the inequalities to which you refer.

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.” Didn't Rome evolve into the Papal State and did not many a Pope take on the role of "Emperor", donning armor and laying seige to other nation states in the name of God and the Pope? Sounds like - take what belongs to Caesar because we (the church) has a higher authority to do so.

Not having been privy to those things, I must limit my comment to this. The Pope is infallible when he speaks on a matter of faith or morals. This means that within those narrow limits, he cannot err. The words of Christ to his temporal successor, Peter, were simple and direct. “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven.” It is crystal clear that these words applied solely as they related to the instructing of the faithful.

Temporal matters; that’s another kettle of fish. Every Pope is a mortal. Mortals, as we know, are not always correct. Popes, bishops, and priests are all judged when their time comes.

You stated: "Although, somehow, in light of the Democratic goal of cradle to grave socialism which has been creeping up on me, I think that is what is happening.

I recognize this sentence. And, I stick with it.

Frankly it confuses me that Republicans generally stand for limited government control, yet are quite eager to enable further limitations on its citizens freedoms, by the hand of the government."

I don’t recognize this sentence.

 

[Fantasea]

Continuation

You are corrrect in your comment that Republicans generally stand for limited govt., but my observation of late has me confused as to who is who. Our President is spending money like a drunken Democrat at a singles bar in Chappaquidick. The deficit is climbing out of control (please don't give me the Iraq nonsense). And social programs abound in the form of pork barrel or faith based initiatives (welfare in sheeps clothing). Democrats are responsible for the biggest welfare reform since FDR and are coming to the center (except for guys like Dean). They are trying to look more and more like Republicans. It's a sorry state of affairs. Their sole objective is to get elected regardless of the message or platform. I will say that it is completely incorrect to believe Democrats are "socialist" as much as Republicans are "fascist". Totally off the mark.

Within the bounds to which you have limited my reply, I can only conclude that, since the House of Representatives controls spending bills and that the Senate must concur before a dime can be released, the Congress, which consists of both Democrats and Republicans, are doing what they consider best in the circumstances. There will, of course, never be unanimity on how much should be spent for what. Therefore, voters should be admonished to keep close watch and replace, at the polls, those whom they consider to be playing fact and loose with the tax dollars.

I believe, however, that if the Democrats would get out of the way and permit the economy to grow as it could without their incessant business stifling tactics, the tax revenues would soar and the budget deficits would vanish, as they did in the 1990s.

But, the Democrats can’t do that, can they? They see their mission as beating to death anything that might improve things. How else can they have any hope of regaining the power they once held but frittered away?

You stated: "The only illustration that makes sense to me is that among the strengths these men brought to government lay the same weakness of the flesh that tempts all men. Some resist the temptation, some do not. It is their strengths which are to be celebrated; not their weaknesses."

Part of their strength is the fact that they realized that we all indeed are human. In being so we are not perfect and require the freedom and flexibility to evolve as a society. I prefer not to look at these great men as having weakness, just acknowledge that they are mere humans with brilliant minds.

I don’t see it quite that way. At the time they were developing a national code of conduct, they also seemed to be saying, “Do what I tell you; don’t do what I do.”

You stated: "Many constitutional scholars would argue that, irrespective of the individual beliefs of the founding fathers, what they embodied in the constitution was the sole duty of the federal government to provide to the states an umbrella of protection that cannot be provided efficiently or economically by the several states. Anything over and above that is a usurpation of the right of the people of a state to decide what is best for themselves."

This is exactly the point of this thread. The states, each individually, have the right to decide if gay marriage is to become part of their law. The federal government is overstepping it's grounds in attempting to ban gay marriage as a Constitutional Amendment. You have had the final word on this subject.

As noted earlier, for better or for worse, (pardon the pun) the results of the ‘same-sex’ marriage initiatives in eleven states have ended all serious thought of a Constitutional amendment.

POST SCRIPT:

I saved this for last as I must admit, I was a bit disappointed to see a thinly veiled personal barb, rather than sticking to the topic / issue. I wasn't even going to dignify it with a response, but thought that in an attempt to maintain an enlightened, civil and intelligent dialogue, I would do so. I do believe this is actually part of a larger discussion, but what the heck... here goes.

You may recall that you emphasized that you were, indeed, attacking the Church.

I have no way of knowing whether it was my veil, or perhaps, your skin which is thin. My intent was, as I have done repeatedly in this forum, to cite observations which I consider to be germane to the discussion. I cannot prevent you from taking offense, but I wish you would not do so. In any event, if you consider my remarks a transgression, then please accept my apology.

You stated: Perhaps not applicable to you, personally, but I have observed that when a person makes a deliberate attack upon the Church, while there can be many reasons, usually one of the following is present:

A marital problem which is unresolved; usually because the person has made no attempt at ecclesiastic resolution;

Lack of understanding the difference between an institution and a human representative of the institution;

A perceived break with the Church due to the performance of activities upon which it frowns; coupled with pride or an inordinate fear of atonement.

Failure to recall that the fallback position of the Church is to hate the sin, but love the sinner and celebrate the return of its ‘lost lambs’;

Less than a clear understanding of Church finances;

The inability to see the Church, not as a museum for saints, but as a hospital for sinners.

Is it not possible that a person would have a problem with an organization which by it's very nature was created to control what people believe and how they live their lives without some pseudo-psycho babble? Michael Moore had a problem with GM before his current notariety, are we to assume that he had a bad childhood experience with a Chevy? Obsurd.

By stating that a marital issue left unresolved, without the intervention of the church (the assumption here being Roman Catholic), is even more hysterical. To get advice from a cloistered cleric with zero real life experience and a repressed sex life that led many to the pits of child molestation is like going to an auto mechanic for a coronary bypass. At least in some of the other "clubs" the clergy has some sense of what it takes to maintain a family, a marriage, earn a living in the real world and all the pressures that go along with that. To seek marital advice from a Priest is like asking advice from a Eunich in a harem... he sees the act all the time, but has no concept of what it is all about, and more importantly he is totally incapable of doing it himself.

The individuals that represent the institution ARE the institution. If you are implying that they, as individuals, can alter doctrine, it only means they are not abiding by their teachings and they should be kicked out of their "old exclusive club". Free thinking people don't need to led around by controls, rituals and dogma imposed upon them by a group with a separate agenda.

If the church truly believed that it's role was to embrace the sinners, it would embrace the gay community and other "sinners". The PR positon plays well, but the underlying disgust and distain for these people is palpible. The hypocracy of the RC church has no limits, and those who recognize it have turned their back on the chuch as evidenced by the shrinking congregations and the critical shortage of seminarians. As you said... look at the vote of the electorate.

Your comment about church finances is also quite amusing. The church (all organized religions) is the oldest, most successful corporation in human history. They sell a very attractive product: salvation. They have a brilliant marketing plan: buy our product = eternal pleasure / don't buy our product = unspeakable pain, fire and brimstone and hell fire for eternity. They have a lock on credibility = God endorses their product. They have no warrantee issues = you have to wait until you die to see if you were beeing scammed. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!! They have used these messages to amass wealth, power and control over most of humanity over the millenia. They have murdered millions in the name of there gods. They continually try to affect legislation over democracies without concern for the other citizens who occupy the space with them. It is all about money and power. If that weren't the truth, churches all over the world would liquidate their real estate holdings, stock portfolios, treasures etc., actually feed the poor and at least try to emulate their founders. Be it a Jimmy Swaggart, The Bakkers, or the Catholic heirarchy... I don't think the true message of the lord was "live large get rich. Fleece your congregation. Don't worry the poor bastards are so afraid of going to hell that they will give until they drop." It is very sad, but the hospital for sinners is in need of a good HMO to curb their abusive practices.

I have long believed that the only way that religion can be safely discussed is if both parties profess the same faith, in the same church, in the same pew, on the Sabbath, and only then, if one is deaf.

Enough of my rant> I leave you with further quotes:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." -- John Adams

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."-- Benjamin Franklin

That they were statesmen is indisputable. However, with matters religious they would have been well directed to these Latin words. Memento, in pellicula, cerdo, tenere tuo. The accepted translation is, “Remember, cobbler, to keep to your leather.”

 

[Contrarian]

As always, thank you for your studied and principaled point of view. Your statement : "I have long believed that the only way that religion can be safely discussed is if both parties profess the same faith, in the same church, in the same pew, on the Sabbath, and only then, if one is deaf." will be added to my collection of fine quotes!

We have beaten this perverbial horse to death and have agreed to agree on a few points, with the remainder never to see common ground. It was stimulating and enlightening. Thank you.

"Democracy demands discussion"

 

[argexpat]

I believe, however, that if the Democrats would get out of the way and permit the economy to grow as it could without their incessant business stifling tactics, the tax revenues would soar and the budget deficits would vanish, as they did in the 1990s.

Please provide some examples of these supposed "business stifling tactics." Otherwise this is just a convenient and unfounded stereotype of Democrats as "anti-business" and ultimately a form of red baiting. FDR's New Deal preceded the greatest economic expansion in our country's history, of which the '90s boom was but a continuation. Government spending in the economy has always been a boon to business, and business interests run our government. That's why, whether under Republican or Democratic contol, corporate welfare never dies.

FYI Please see this excellent debate on the subject of liberalism vs. conservatism.

See also this piece by Michael Kinsley on the effect of Republican vs. Democratic presidents on our economy:

"It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. (The spreadsheet is on the Web at www.latimes.com/ dothemath.) Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).

What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.

Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already."

P.S. Yes, Kinsley is a liberal from a liberal college who writes for a liberal paper. Now that I've condeded that irrelevant point, I ask that you please restrict your rebuttal to the arguments at hand, and not on who is making them.

But, the Democrats can’t do that, can they? They see their mission as beating to death anything that might improve things. How else can they have any hope of regaining the power they once held but frittered away?

Please explain what possible rational would be driving Democrats---who, BTW, are also Americans---to prevent "anything that might improve things." As has been demonstrated above, things have improved markedly under liberalism. Are you saying that Democrats are so power man that they will stop at nothing to regain it, even ruining the country? I can't think of a better description of the current Republican administration.

 

[Fantasea]

As always, thank you for your studied and principaled point of view. Your statement : "I have long believed that the only way that religion can be safely discussed is if both parties profess the same faith, in the same church, in the same pew, on the Sabbath, and only then, if one is deaf." will be added to my collection of fine quotes!

We have beaten this perverbial horse to death and have agreed to agree on a few points, with the remainder never to see common ground. It was stimulating and enlightening. Thank you.

"Democracy demands discussion"

You are welcome to use my original words whenever you wish, so long as you remember to provide proper attribution.

I, too, have enjoyed the highly intelligent content and the exceedingly civil conduct of this 'sparring match'. I hope that you will be just taking a breather and that we will again meet in the 'ring'.

 

[Jufarius87]

constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

the only reason the founding fathers did not do this is because they probably never would have expected this from us

even though some cultures except homosexuality i cant for the life of me think of one that had permenant unions of gays or spiritual linkings of gays

marraige has been between men and women for millenia and it shouldnt change now

give them cival unions with all the benefits of marriage

 

[Jufarius87]

"sigh" i started reading the arguement and i will answer your question bush spends money like a drunk president because he is what has been called a "neo con" old conservatives like reagun tried to cut down on govt spending the neo cons on the other hand spend just as much as the dems its just on diff things were dems pour money into handouts to citizens neo cons spend the cash on the military in addition to handouts

i beleive we need to go back to the old conservative outlook of spending less all around the difference between the parties now is

dems:weak military but spends lots on welfare and other aid programs and they want little control of social issues

rep (neo con):spend a little less on govt handouts (still too much imo) but also pour the cash out for a good military and they want all control of social issues

 

[argexpat]

constitutional

marraige has been between men and women for millenia and it shouldnt change now

Marriage will still be between men and women...and men and men and women and women. This is expanding the great tradition of marriage. Half of all marriages end in divorce. It seems that it's heterosexuals who are the real threat to traditional marriage.

give them cival unions with all the benefits of marriage

Marriages are civil unions, that's why you can't deny them arbitrarily to certain people. That's called discrimination. If you give gays "civil unions with all the benefits of marriage" you're giving them marriage, so why don't we stop with these silly semantic games and extend civil liberties to all citizens, which is the very definition of the American way.

 

[Fantasea]

Marriage will still be between men and women...and men and men and women and women. This is expanding the great tradition of marriage. Half of all marriages end in divorce. It seems that it's heterosexuals who are the real threat to traditional marriage.



Marriages are civil unions, that's why you can't deny them arbitrarily to certain people. That's called discrimination. If you give gays "civil unions with all the benefits of marriage" you're giving them marriage, so why don't we stop with these silly semantic games and extend civil liberties to all citizens, which is the very definition of the American way.

Even your next door neighbors in Oregon disagree with you.

You may recall that on Election Day, Oregon Measure 36 which would ban same-sex marriage was approved by voters with a two to one ratio. The concept met the same fate in all of the ten other states where it was on the ballot.

Democratic politicians have never been known to be deaf, dumb, or blind. However, since noting those results, all of them seem to have become deaf, dumb, and blind on the subject of same-sex marriage.

In matters that engender strong public feelings, politicians are confident that polling results may be safely extrapolated. Do you think that the Democratic politicians, smarting from their latest bashing at the polls, retained enough political savvy to extapolate the results of eleven states across the entire fifty?

 

[Gabo]

Marriages are civil unions, that's why you can't deny them arbitrarily to certain people. That's called discrimination.

Giving tax breaks to people for being married is also discrimination.

In fact, anti-discrimination laws are discrimination!

Anytime a choice is made where one thing is chosen over another, the loser is being "discriminated" against by the chooser.

The only reason this is an issue at all is because the government discriminates against single people! There's absolutely no reason to give a tax break to a couple just because they love each other. They don't deserve it any more than a single person who loves caring for their pet. Or anyone else for that matter!

If you end government discrimination against single people, you end the issue about gay marriage because marriage is a religious affair, something churches can regulate themselves, without forceful government involvement.

 

[Schweddy]

Giving tax breaks to people for being married is also discrimination.

I do not understand this logic. Our system is based on the marriage system. What is interesting is that most single folks I know actually pay LESS taxes. I could indeed be wrong and it could be perception.

In fact, anti-discrimination laws are discrimination!
Anytime a choice is made where one thing is chosen over another, the loser is being "discriminated" against by the chooser.

What about criminals? Are they "discriminated" against when they are locked up because of thier actions?

If you end government discrimination against single people, you end the issue about gay marriage because marriage is a religious affair, something churches can regulate themselves, without forceful government involvement.

Not quite. Marriage is by the government, not by the churches. Many people decide to go through thier churches when they marry. Many poeple believe in religious marriages that ties in with government acknowleged marriage.

 

[out of the blue]

This is a wierd poll. The question asked is a "yes" or "no" question, but none of the options are either "yes" or "no."

 

[Schweddy]

The answers are ambivolent on purpose. It has spured some excellent discussion.

Would you agree?

 

[Gabo]

What about criminals? Are they "discriminated" against when they are locked up because of thier actions?

Yes, they are in fact being discriminated. Discrimination is when you treat people differently because of something about them. It's a natural part of life. Everyone discriminates on a daily basis. The only problems come in when the government discriminates unfairly.

Not quite. Marriage is by the government, not by the churches. Many people decide to go through thier churches when they marry. Many poeple believe in religious marriages that ties in with government acknowleged marriage.

Marriage originated as a religious affair, therefore it should stay out of government. Filing joint taxes saves you more than filing individually therefore married people get a tax break. There should be no tax break discriminating against unmarried people. Everyone should be able to express their love to one another in whatever way they wish, whether its marriage, a different religious ceremony, or a nonreligious union.

 

[Fantasea]

Two legal rulings, reported by the Associated Press in the last day or so, seem to shed new light on things.

I am reminded of the first lines of that old time poem, 'Casey at the Bat'.

"The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day,
The score stood four to two, with but an inning left to play.

Thus far, in the twelve states in which voters have had an opportunity to express their will on the subject of same-sex marriage, the score is twelve to zero, against.

Whatever can this mean, other than a shutout is in progress?

Louisiana Court OKs Anti-gay Marriage Amendment
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in September.

(Related story: Federal judge rules Florida does not have to recognize gay marriages)

The high court reversed a ruling by a state district judge, who struck down the "defense of marriage" amendment in October on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

But the Supreme Court said: "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage."

The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78% of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.


Judge Throws Out Same-sex Marriage Suit
TAMPA (AP) — In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here. Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.

(Related story: La. court OKs anti-gay marriage amendment)

"This is a legal shot heard 'round the world," said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. "But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it."

Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said Wednesday's ruling was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.

Moody sided with Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage "stable relationships" for the rearing of children by both biological parents.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

The problem here is completely in the wording. Christians consider marriage a promise to each other, before God. If you simply seperate marriage from civil union there would be no grounds for argument. Save marriage for church, and call a civil union "civil union" therefore there is no religious stigma implied.

 

[shuamort]

The problem here is completely in the wording. Christians consider marriage a promise to each other, before God. If you simply seperate marriage from civil union there would be no grounds for argument. Save marriage for church, and call a civil union "civil union" therefore there is no religious stigma implied.

You do realize that there are gay people in churches and there are churches that support gay marriage as well. Should a church want to marry two gay people, shouldn't they be able to?

 

[Pacridge]

You do realize that there are gay people in churches and there are churches that support gay marriage as well. Should a church want to marry two gay people, shouldn't they be able to?

No, because some people don't like sushi and when other's eat curry at the buffet it smells:thinking

 

[shuamort]

No, because some people don't like sushi and when other's eat curry at the buffet it smells:thinking

I thought something was fishy about the whole objections...

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You do realize that there are gay people in churches and there are churches that support gay marriage as well. Should a church want to marry two gay people, shouldn't they be able to?

I personally do not think so. I am convinced through my interpretation of the scritpture that no one is to have sex outside of marriage (surely you can understand why, after all the diseases and unplanned pregnanancies that God might have said this) and I honestly interperate the Bible to say that marriage is meant to be between man and woman. It gives specific roles for both the male and the female in the household. I think for obvious reasons of reproduction, but not so apparent reasons regarding perenthood, it is just more logical and more in the direction of God's intention for us as a race as well as His children for marriage, seen as a contract between people before God, as being specific to man and wife. As my fiancee argued, coming from a household where it was just she and her mother, her father having left them, that there is no replacement for a father AND a mother figure in the household. And no matter how similar to that sex the homosexual in question may be, they are, arguably not precisely that sex, and I think that simply cannot replace the actual gender role as a parent (if for nothing more than to be a model for a child). Of course this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the Word. In reality, it is left to the pastor to seek guidance from God regarding the couple, and if he feels led, by God to join them in a Godly union, that is his perogative, and in the end, is his choice and his choice alone.

 

[shuamort]

I personally do not think so. I am convinced through my interpretation of the scritpture that no one is to have sex outside of marriage (surely you can understand why, after all the diseases and unplanned pregnanancies that God might have said this) and I honestly interperate the Bible to say that marriage is meant to be between man and woman. It gives specific roles for both the male and the female in the household. I think for obvious reasons of reproduction, but not so apparent reasons regarding perenthood, it is just more logical and more in the direction of God's intention for us as a race as well as His children for marriage, seen as a contract between people before God, as being specific to man and wife. As my fiancee argued, coming from a household where it was just she and her mother, her father having left them, that there is no replacement for a father AND a mother figure in the household. And no matter how similar to that sex the homosexual in question may be, they are, arguably not precisely that sex, and I think that simply cannot replace the actual gender role as a parent (if for nothing more than to be a model for a child). Of course this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the Word. In reality, it is left to the pastor to seek guidance from God regarding the couple, and if he feels led, by God to join them in a Godly union, that is his perogative, and in the end, is his choice and his choice alone.

I guess we're lucky then that there aren't only more than one interpretation of Bible, but more than one religion, and a government that doesn't allow congress to make laws established or prohibiting freedom of them either.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I guess we're lucky then that there aren't only more than one interpretation of Bible, but more than one religion, and a government that doesn't allow congress to make laws established or prohibiting freedom of them either.

To me, that is not a question of the United States. I think seeking a civil union and a church ordained marriage are two incredibly seperate things. I do not think it is fair to ask a church to perform a marraige for homosexuals if they believe it is a sin. But I also don't believe it is fair for the church based on its beliefs to prevent a civil union. You want a seperation between church and state, you can't apply civil law in a church setting because after all, that's why the state was originally ordered to state out of church affairs.

 

[shuamort]

To me, that is not a question of the United States. I think seeking a civil union and a church ordained marriage are two incredibly seperate things. I do not think it is fair to ask a church to perform a marraige for homosexuals if they believe it is a sin. But I also don't believe it is fair for the church based on its beliefs to prevent a civil union. You want a seperation between church and state, you can't apply civil law in a church setting because after all, that's why the state was originally ordered to state out of church affairs.

Here's where your disconnect is happening. That a marriage as granted by the state necessitates religions interference. It doesn't. My parents are married not by the church but by the government. Man and woman. Married. No church involved. No religion whatsoever as a matter of fact.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Here's where your disconnect is happening. That a marriage as granted by the state necessitates religions interference. It doesn't. My parents are married not by the church but by the government. Man and woman. Married. No church involved. No religion whatsoever as a matter of fact.

No, I understand that. But the Church sees a marriage as a relgious contract. If we simply make a notable distiction between civil unioni and marriage, there would be no argument, at least not as far as I could see.