Anyone feel free to chime in but I am curious what Colpat thinks of gay marriage, legalities and otherwise.
 |
0 Kudo
Gay Marriage?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 apost8n8 |
Gay Marriage? |
Lead | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 06/22/09 12:49 PM innocent iconoclast |
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
tergiversant |
#1 | |||
|
Olympian
Posts: 4451 06/22/09 1:08 PM AOK Devil's Advocate |
Allow me to posit this proposition for consideration:
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
What is Gay Marriage? | #2 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/22/09 6:34 PM Demigod |
I'll go first with something for you to shoot at.
I understand we are using "gay" to mean homosexual and "marriage" as used for at least 150 years of US history, as the union of one man and one woman. We the people are now having to decide if we are going to change our laws as our culture has changed. It is a debate that we are and should be having. My view is until the legislature, the only body that can make law, changes the law we must abide by those laws. Therefore IMO gay marriage is unlawful. Civil Unions/Contracts are legal and governed by the states. These CU's can usually provide full protections and obligations for same sex couples. I have no problem with whatever vows/ring exchange/ type of traditions that makes the couple and friends comfortable. Just don't ask me to participate. For me and my household we will follow God's Word and we will obey the laws of the land because that is what God's Word requires.  :
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
JEGH |
#3 | |||
|
Poster Child
Posts: 1 06/24/09 9:19 AM |
Regarding gay marriage: I was recently married in a secular ceremony by a Justice of the Peace. My husband and I decided to marry because of the benefits we
would receive through his employer, the US Army, and for personal reasons of course. God had/has no part in our union. In our case, marriage is a wholly human
institution. The legal ramifications of our marriage contract are the same as for a couple who was wed by a religious official, believes the purpose of
marriage is procreation, or simply likes the aesthetics of a formal church wedding. Whether they believe god supports them is their business.
The provisions of same-sex civil unions are not equal to that of marriages, however the latter is performed. It is unclear to me what rights heterosexual couples deserve that homosexuals do not. Then too, civil union/domestic partnership laws vary from state to state, or do not exist at all, whereas a legal marriage is recognized nation/worldwide. If semantics are truly the issue, if some Americans cannot tolerate the word "marriage" being applied to a homosexual pairing, then they can have it, as long as there is an equivalent arrangement open to anyone. If there were an indisputably secular version of marriage, I would have signed up for that. I don't need to be "married" per se, but I do need the rights and privileges granted to those in a marriage relationship. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tergiversant |
Majoritarianism vs Judicial Review | #4 | ||
|
Olympian
Posts: 4451 06/24/09 2:48 PM AOK Devil's Advocate |
My view is until the legislature, the only body that can make law, changes the law we must abide by those laws.Did you also take this position on such issues as marriage between people of different races (e.g. Loving v. Virginia) or other laws which irrationally discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or creed? Have the courts no authority to overrule the legislatures when they trample on fundamental civil rights? If the legislature mandated marriages must be performed according to the Koran and Hadith, with no allowance for civil marriage, would you just shrug and say well, its up to the legislature to make the laws, without regard for basic constitutional guarantees such as equal protection under the law? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
It isn't a question of what is deserved | #5 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/24/09 3:02 PM Demigod |
It is not a question what is deserved, it is what is the law. Neither is it a question of tolerating/redefining "marriage". It is a question what
is legal.
That is the situation. As all my student's know when you are in a situation you don't like there are 3 and only 3 choices. 1. Move 2. Adapt 3. Die In this situation - Moving is probably not a good choice for a number of reasons & neither is dying. That leaves Adapting. In this situation one option would be to adapt by accepting the law and living life accordingly. Another option would be to work to change the law. And we can't rule out disobeying the law and taking the consequences. We in the USA are now debating if and how we want to change the law. Those with sharia law have very little wiggle room except to accept the law. That's my viewpoint. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tergiversant |
#6 | |||
|
Olympian
Posts: 4451 06/24/09 6:06 PM AOK Devil's Advocate |
You discount (without argument) the possibilty of changing the law by challenging its constitutionality. I recommend for your consideration the majority
opinion in Loving.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
Yes! Yes! & No! | #7 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/24/09 9:28 PM Demigod |
You ask:
" Did you also take this position on such issues as marriage between people of different races (e.g. Loving v. Virginia) or other laws which irrationally discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or creed?" Yes You ask: "Have the courts no authority to overrule the legislatures when they trample on fundamental civil rights?" The SCOTUS has the authority to declare laws the legislature enacts unconstitutional. It is then up to Congress to enact a law that deals with the issue and is constitutional. Only Congress has the authority to enact law. :
You ask: "If the legislature mandated marriages must be performed according to the Koran and Hadith, with no allowance for civil marriage, would you just shrug and say well, its up to the legislature to make the laws, without regard for basic constitutional guarantees such as equal protection under the law? No I would not just shrug and say it is up to the legislature to make laws, without........ It is up to SCOTUS determine basic constitutional guarantees such as equal protection under the law. If SCOTUS fails to protect us we still have the check and balance of Congress writing a new constitutional law and the President can chose to delay enforcement of the law. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
Loving vs Virginia has been considered | #8 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/24/09 9:48 PM Demigod |
tergiversant wrote: |
|||
|
|
||||
|
apost8n8 |
#9 | |||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 06/25/09 1:22 PM innocent iconoclast |
So it seems to me that SCOTUS will eventually "wipe incredibly bad laws off the books", such as the Defense of Marriage Act, that do not provide
"equal protection under the law" for homosexual citizens in the same way it has for other minority groups. I can see "no secular rational
justification for denying same-sex couples the full protections, obligations, and nomenclature of marriage" myself.
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
"Is DOMA an incredibly bad Law?" is the debate | #10 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/25/09 3:36 PM Demigod |
In your world view Yes. Your stated reason "homosexual citizens is a minority group" for which the Constitution provides "equal protection
under the law"
Key words - the law (not the way you think it ought to be). The US Constitution does not include sexual preference in the list of protected groups. That is one facet of the debate "Should sexual preference/orientation" be included in the list of protected minorities. Now to address secular rational justification for denying same-sex couples the same bill of particulars as husband and wife. From both biological and Darwinian standpoints same sex couples do not perpetuate the species. Most studies have found that husband and wife homes provide greater financial and emotional stability because of a Commitment to provide for offspring. Husband and wife couples are generally committed to the future. We want a good future. Committed to each other and their offspring. This Commitment builds family units, the foundation of our civilization Homosexual couples are more often thinking only of the present. I want my way now. No offspring with which to be concerned. Lack of Commitment tends to destroy the family unit which is the foundation of our civilization. From my point of view - The best way to perpetuate the human race and preserve our way of life is to do what has worked best down through history. Family units working together. I see no secular rational justification for recognizing same sex marriage. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
apost8n8 |
#11 | |||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 06/26/09 11:55 AM innocent iconoclast |
"The US Constitution does not include sexual preference in the list of protected groups" a list huh? which amendment is that?
"From both biological and Darwinian standpoints same sex couples do not perpetuate the species. " So marriage should only be for those who plan to procreate? "Homosexual couples are more often thinking only of the present. " What makes you think that? I think commitment is primarily on the mind of all of those people entering marriage. "The best way to perpetuate the human race and preserve our way of life is to do what has worked best down through history." Like slavery, racism, genocide, mysogyny... If homosexuals can have state recognized marriages, how exactly does that hinder people from having children and raising families?
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
You are absolutely correct | #12 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/26/09 10:19 PM Demigod |
The US Constitution does not have a list of protected groups. Not even the XIV Amendment. That leaves us with our current laws. You asked "Should marriage be only for those who plan to procreate?" From a biological and Darwinian standpoint what other reason is there for marriage? You ask "What makes me thing that homosexual couples are only thinking of the present?" Since they can not have offspring (the future) what behavior would indicate most homosexual couple are thinking of the future. The question you raised "how exactly does state recognized same sex marriage hinder people from having children and raising families" indicates only the present is important. State recognized same sex marriage hinders at the very least by confusing children which weakens the family unit. At worst it would lead to the extinction of the human species. The Darwinian view of "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" certainly supports this as bad. It appears to me the commitment in a homosexual marriage is only for the present. A commitment that benefits only the couple and not society. Your comment: "The best way to perpetuate the human race and preserve our way of life is to do what has worked best down through history." Like slavery, racism, genocide, mysogyny... is a good example of what hasn't worked and we have almost eliminated in the USA. Which leaves us with the question "What secular rationalization justification is there for recognizing same sex marriage?" :
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
apost8n8 |
#13 | |||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 06/28/09 9:21 AM innocent iconoclast |
Civil rights were not only affected with new laws. Quite often it was inacted as a court ruling that a persons race could not be used as a factor to
marginalize them. You may be aware that ERA hasn't been ratified yet courts interpret "men" in law to include women on equal grounds. Lower
courts can't alter interpretation from previous findings, but SCOTUS sure as hell can and many many times has. My best guess is that more progressive
states will continue to change laws and/or their courts will make rulings that recognize gay americans equal rights and eventually SCOTUS will rule that OK,
AL, MS, etc. are retarded and must recognize homosexuals as humans as well.
What is "biological or Darwinian" are not valid arguments for what is just or good. Surely you are not making that argument. I don't think we should make laws that say if you can't procreate or don't plan on it then you can't be married. I doubt you think that either. There are lots of advantages to marriage that don't have anything to do with children. Generally people live healthier and longer with life partners. They generally make more money and share many things thus making them use less resources. There are many many more. Its ridiculous that you even make that line of argument. Wether you like it or not there exists today many familys that don't fit the traditional family mold. They live and struggle just like everyone else. There are many gay familys that do have children already and they need the protection of marriage to ensure their family has the best chance of being stable. There just is no reason to deny these people the same rights as other citizens. "What secular rational... justification is there for recognizing same sex marriage?" Because they are citizens entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Maybe you should read XIV-1 again yourself.
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
Courts can not enact laws. Only Congress can enact a law. | #14 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/28/09 10:11 AM Demigod |
You pointed out:
Quite often it was inacted as a court ruling that a persons race could not be used as a factor to marginalize them. SCOTUS did interpret the law that freedom from discrimination based on race is protected under the law. Your post: Because they are citizens entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Maybe you should read XIV-1 again yourself. I have just read again XIV-1 "without due process of LAW"(Uppercase added for emphasis) "equal protection of the LAWS" ALL citizens have this protection. Now what LAW recognizing sexual preference as a protected right do we have for SCOTUS to consider? Until then we are obligated to follow the law or pay the consequences. What is "biological or Darwinian" are not valid arguments for what is just or good. Surely you are not making that argument. I was only making the point that from a biological or Darwinian view homosexual behavior is counter productive not whether it was just or good. What source do you suggest as a valid argument for "What is just or good"? There are lots of advantages to marriage that don't have anything to do with children. Generally people live healthier and longer with life partners. They generally make more money and share many things thus making them use less resources. There are many many more. Its ridiculous that you even make that line of argument. You make my point these are documented benefits to "traditional marriage". What documentation of benefits do you cite for homosexual life partners? Whether you like it or not there exists today many familys that don't fit the traditional family mold. They live and struggle just like everyone else. I know all too well that there are people trying to live together as a "family" that don't fit the traditional family mold and sadly pay the consequences. We have spent much of our life helping those who have made bad choices. Part of the solution has been to get back into a traditional family mold. Your observation supports my point. Nothing down through history has succeeded like the "traditional family" In fact, history is replete with nations failing because of perversion of the "traditional family" Why do we call it traditional family? Because it works.
Last Edited By: colpat7 06/28/09 1:48 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
An Interesting Thought | #15 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/28/09 1:35 PM Demigod |
This discussion would not be possible if our parents had chose a same-sex life partner.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
JP |
#16 | |||
|
Poster Child
Posts: 14 06/28/09 2:47 PM |
colpat said: Most studies have found that husband and wife homes provide greater financial and emotional stability because of a Commitment to provide for
offspring. Husband and wife couples are generally committed to the future. We want a good future. Committed to each other and their offspring. This Commitment
builds family units, the foundation of our civilization " Could you please point me to those studies so I may educate myself? And... you also said:
"Nothing down through history has succeeded like the "traditional family" In fact, history is replete with nations failing because of perversion
of the "traditional family". Could you also be more specific on this one please? Which nations failed because of perversion of the "traditional
family"?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
As requested | #17 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/28/09 5:32 PM Demigod |
Historian Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) wrote a classic analysis on the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History. In it he examined 21 great civilizations. Of a all these, the only one that survives intact to the present is the United States of America. Historians say it is not surprising that societies fall when they forsake traditional marriage. As citizens fail to re-populate and as they concentrate
on their own pleasures, their society weakens. The aged are left with few to defend them.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
apost8n8 |
#18 | |||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 06/30/09 3:11 PM innocent iconoclast |
So how exactly are birthrates and fidelity in heteromarriage related to homomarriage? It seems to me the self righteous need to worry about there own marriages
if they are concerned about what kids will think of the institution. I'm a big fan of marriage myself. I like my wife. I like my kids. I like my life. If I
was gay I would think I would want the same things (albeit a man and perhaps adopted kids or kids via surrogates). I see no reason to keep them from enjoying
the good things in life.
FWIW, if there happens to be a lack of studies showing gay marriages are as successful (however you might define that???) as hetero ones, perhaps thats a bit like slave owners claiming that black people have inferior intellect. Give them a chance. I just don't get how keeping a minority group from enjoying the same freedoms as everyone else is a good thing, ever... Do you think homosexuality should be legal at all?
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
Last Edited By: apost8n8 06/30/09 3:16 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
colpat7 |
The ANSWER to the QUESTION will determine the answers to your questions | #19 | ||
|
Demigod
Posts: 750 06/30/09 9:09 PM Demigod |
The QUESTION:
Why do I exist? Only when I know Why I exist, can I begin to measure success. If there is no purpose for my existence then I will never be able to measure success. I had a 6th grade student suggest facetiously, "I want to do nothing for my science fair project." I responded "How will you know if you get finished or succeed?" I know why I exist. Just like Jesus "I exist to do the will of my Father" I measure success as "How close am I to what God has in mind for me." What is your answer to "Why do I exist?"? So how exactly are birthrates and fidelity in heteromarriage related to homomarriage? I don't know. if there happens to be a lack of studies showing gay marriages are as successful (however you might define that???) as hetero ones, In my view gay marriage can never be successful because homosexual behavior is an abomination to God. I understand in your view since there is no god how can homosexual behavior be an abomination, so why does it matter. You are certainly entitled to your view. We have freedom to choose in the USA. But we all have to live within the Law of the Land. I see no reason to keep them from enjoying the good things in life. I don't know what you mean by "enjoying the good things in life." Do you think homosexuality should be legal at all? No. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
apost8n8 |
#20 | |||
|
Demigod
Posts: 1031 07/01/09 6:05 AM innocent iconoclast |
Do you think homosexuality should be legal at all?Yikes... I guess this should have been my first question but I apparently take it for granted that people are on that page. Am I right to assume you mean homosexual activities, such as homosex, should be made illegal or do you mean anyone that claims that label should be locked up? Do you think atheism should be legal at all? and would you mean the personal lack of beliefs or just associated activities like blasphemy.
A cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect
sense. credit
Last Edited By: apost8n8 07/01/09 9:57 AM.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Reply
AOK Graphics © 2001-2008 Oklahoma Atheists, all rights reserved.
