Prop 8?

@Diest TKO,

There are truths that transcend humanity and we should collectively be seeking out those truths. Instead, we're complacent and content with delegating right and wrong to each individual, even if nature disagrees. That's not free thinking, that's laziness.

1 Reply

@Copper Seth,

Nature disagree with your claims about homosexuality. What is lazy is delegating right and wrong to a moral authority such as the bible which has no basis in rational, logical or ethical balance.

"Transcend humanity" sounds like majority does not always rule...

Truth does
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Well, I am sorry that you are unable to understand how these legal documents work. The fact that you are unwilling to accept fact makes you, well....stupid.

0 Replies

"Prop 8: The Musical" starring Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris http://blogs.trb.com/entertainment/technology/watchthis/2008/12/prop_8_the_musical_starring_ja.html

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I don't appreciate your statement that the Bible has no basis in rational, logical, or ethical balance. Please, if you're going to make these statements, back them up. There's a book I'd like you to read if you ever get time. It's called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. There is more evidence that supports the Bible than there is that disclaims it. Regardless, this is a moot point. Nature does not disagree with my claims about homosexuality. No where in the animal kingdom will you find homosexual couples mating for life. You will find animals who partake in homosexual intercourse, but that's simply because they have an impulse. Big difference.

And yes... truth does transcend humanity. It should not be assumed that we define it.

2 Replies

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

The argument that the connection between Polygamy and Gay marriage isn't far off, isn't invalid. It's a conclusion based on common sense, reason and the laws of nature. Neither gay marriage nor polygamy are natural or healthy forms of marriage. Both of them are not what God or nature intended.

You haven't displayed any common sense or reason nor have you shown that you're informed concerning the "laws of nature." You intentionally blind yourself to the distinction between monogamy and polygamy. You have not supported your conclusion that monogamy leads a society down the slippery slope to polygamy.

Your religious beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. You intentionally blind yourself to the distinction between government and religion. Whatever you may believe to be "God's intent" is not binding upon our secular government that must necessarily make and administer our laws for the benefit of EVERYONE within the jurisdiction of the government (not just for your benefit and your religious beliefs). With respect to the framework of our constitutional republic, you are free to believe whatever you want. However, you are not free to impose your particular religious beliefs on our entire diverse society through the operation of our laws.

Quote:

Those arguments about where you draw the line if you allow polygamy, are not mine. Those were the opinions of the supreme court in the reynolds vs US case. Those are their words, and you are ignoring the law of the land.

You haven't displayed reading comprehension. The Reynolds case concerned a law of general applicability that criminalized bigamy. Laws of general applicability apply to EVERYONE. As a defense to the criminal charge, the defendant alleged that his religion embraced polygamy and that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion prevented the state from criminally penalizing his exercise of polygamy.

The Reynolds Court rejected the defendant's defense and held that constitutional security for FREEDOM OF RELIGION is not a license to disobey laws of general applicability. For example, our laws of general applicability also criminalize murder. An individual CANNOT escape criminal prosecution for murder simply because the individual's religion embraced human sacrifice. Thus, the constitutional security for FREEDOM OF RELIGION gives you the right to believe whatever you want. It does not, however, give you the right to engage in conduct that violates a law of general applicability.

On the other hand, if the State, by and through the operation of its law, allowed some classes of people to engage in polygamy and denied that right to other classes of people, then we would be dealing with a matter of DISCRIMINATION. In other words, we would not be dealing with a law of general applicability because the law is not applicable to EVERYONE. In the case of State sponsored discrimination, the matter is NOT analyzed under a religious clause of the constitution--it is analyzed under the equal protection clause.

In this THREAD, we're discussing MONOGAMY. By and through the operation of its laws, the State allows some classes of people to engage in monogamy and denies that right to other classes of people. Thus, the state sponsored discrimination is analyzed under the equal protection clause.

The above in simple, but perhaps you lack the necessary intellect to understand basic information.

Quote:

The government is not discriminating against gays because they do not prevent them from marrying. They can marry whoever they want, as long as it is someone from the opposite sex.

In one sentence you allege that the government is not discriminating against gays, and in your very next sentence you acknowledge that the government is in fact discriminating against them. The government prevents them from marrying the same-sex person of their choice and you acknowledge that vital fact.

Quote:

Hell, they can find a crazy church that will marry them, but the government will not recognize the marriage.

You bring your religious beliefs into the discussion as if they are relevant when you obviously KNOW those beliefs are not relevant. In your opinion, if other people belong to churches that do not embrace your prejudice and bigotry, then they belong to a "crazy church." When I informed you about the separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment, you denied the existence of that wall of separation--until it suits your hypocritical purpose to do otherwise. You place a wall of separation between the government and "crazy churches," but not your own church.

You are a hypocrite.

0 Replies

@Copper Seth,

Um... I think you need to keep religion out of this debate. It is irrelevant to our society.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Throw out religious beliefs and claim that it is irrelevant to our society? Did you not read about the faith of our founding fathers? The constitution was founded on Christian principles and the belief that God's laws are found in nature and are unalterable. To ignore this is like basing your argument on a quote and not verifying the source. The basic right of man that is talked about about was deemed so for a reason...procreation, the survival of the species. Show me a way in which same sex marriage qualifies for the survival of the species.

"All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine." - James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice (James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation." )

"[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this." - Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution (Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.)

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." - JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES(Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)

To take religion out of the argument is to take away the source of our freedom. I have pages more of quotes like the ones I've posted that shows what our founding fathers designed our country to be and what they believed in the area of religion. I know that modern history books want to discount the role of religion in the founding of our country. However, those books ignore who these men were and what they were all about. To correctly interpret anything that has been written, you MUST examine what the writers who wrote the very words you based your argument on were trying to say. Otherwise, you're twisting their meaning to reach a conclusion that best suits YOUR individual interest. It devalues your argument. Let me know if you'd like some more quotes from our founding fathers and their beliefs regarding religions role in governing our country.

1 Reply

@Copper Seth,

Most of our major founding fathers was not all that christian and to claim otherwise is what I call lying for Jesus.

Please read Paine "Age of Reason" to start with and end by doing a google search with the following key words, Deith, founding fathers.

0 Replies

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

I don't appreciate your statement that the Bible has no basis in rational, logical, or ethical balance.

You opened the door on religion in this conversation. I care not what you do or don't appreciate. You make your bed, and you can sleep in it.

Copper Seth wrote:

Please, if you're going to make these statements, back them up. There's a book I'd like you to read if you ever get time. It's called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. There is more evidence that supports the Bible than there is that disclaims it.

-Slavery
-Murder
-Child Abuse
-Male female double standards of rights
as a ironic bonus...
-Incest
-Polygamy

...to name a few of the irrational, illogical and unbalanced parts of your mythology. As for a verdict, it was cast a long time ago against these old superstitions. What we have now is a world that less values a book of stories and more values it's own intellect and objectivity. You're in the process of appeal, but it doesn't look good for you.

Copper Seth wrote:

Regardless, this is a moot point.

And an non-factual one on your behalf.

Copper Seth wrote:

Nature does not disagree with my claims about homosexuality.

Biologists, neurologists and psychologists disagree. You're trumped.

Copper Seth wrote:

No where in the animal kingdom will you find homosexual couples mating for life.

Nobody is claiming that you do. What you do see in nature plenty is that homosexual animals still stay a part of the pack and are not ostracized or treated different.

"We are the only animal that blushes" ~Mark Twain

Copper Seth wrote:

You will find animals who partake in homosexual intercourse, but that's simply because they have an impulse. Big difference.

Now you're a zoologist? Your claim that it is simple impulse is unsupported. Even if you were to able to prove that it was impulsive, you'd still be stuck. How could you prove that heterosexual animals engage in sex out of anything but impulse? If impulse is a natural part of an animals architecture, then a gay animal following its sexual impulse is doing guess what? Acting naturally.

Copper Seth wrote:

And yes... truth does transcend humanity. It should not be assumed that we define it.

This statement directly contradicts the claim that majority rules. The majority is seeking to define a truth in spite of the rational argument contrary.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Um... I think you need to keep religion out of this debate. It is irrelevant to our society.

Nobody is saying it's irrelevant to society, but it is separate from our laws.

What you should know is that it wasn't just people like Jefferson (not a Christian) who fought for a secular government, but it was Christians like Roger Williams. Williams fought hard with the puritans of the Massachusetts colony about the wrongs of religious orthodoxy. He was banished and founded what is now Providence, Rhode Island. He was a Christian and he didn't what a Christian government? Do you know why?

Because he had the foresight to see that the more religious government became, the more governmental religion became!

He was one of the earliest (perhaps the most significant) to believe that the natives deserved to be financially compensated for the land that the colonies took. He believed they deserved to be treated as equals and did not believe in indoctrinating them into Christianity... his own religion.

No matter what his convictions were as a Christian, he knew it was wrong to use government to force any belief. Government was a dirty thing, and he knew it would only tarnish the thing he loved the most.

"A wall of separation between Church and State" may have been made famous by a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Virginia Baptists, but the phrase was actually coined by Williams. Noteworthy, the Virginia Baptists were worried that they would not have their minority rights and beliefs respected by the new government (hence the letters to Jefferson). This notion you have of majority rule would have had allowed community standards to render the baptists obsolete.

Ironic isn't it that Baptists, a group so commonly associated with aggressive evangelicalism in modern day would have paved the way to protect the rights of all religions.

As a added bonus...

Treaty of Tripoli wrote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was 1797, and was sighed by President John Adams, and ratified unanimously by the Senate.

[quote="Copper Seth]The constitution was founded on Christian principles and the belief that God's laws are found in nature and are unalterable.[/quote]
Plenty of references to a deity, but never by name and never specifically Christian mythology.

Copper Seth wrote:

The basic right of man that is talked about about was deemed so for a reason...procreation, the survival of the species.

False. We were creating "a more perfect union." Nothing about survival of the species. That's not what the constitution is about. Your imagination is out of control.

Copper Seth wrote:

Show me a way in which same sex marriage qualifies for the survival of the species.

More stabilized and financially secure gay couples could better help offer good homes to children. The couple being able to link assets and have the relationship recognized in each state allows for them to stay more financially stable through life career choices like moving to a new state for better pay. The better off they are the more they are able to pay into programs like social security etc. Not letting gays marry creates unnecessary obstacles in creating their own stable structure where they'd best be able to contribute.

However, it doesn't matter though. Two straight people don't have to establish how they contribute to the survival of the species to be qualified ot marry. Hell, for that matter look at the baby boomers! The greatest generation by your standard did a very good job of breeding, and guess what the species looks kind of threatened when the baby boomers start to retire and my generation gets to catch the bill. They call it "Boomsday."

Like I said, survival of the species is not what marriage is about. If survival of the species was a real issue gays getting married would also not obstruct the ability of straight people to breed. You use no logic.

Copper Seth wrote:

To take religion out of the argument is to take away the source of our freedom.

Your rights do not include using the government to advance the agenda of your mythology. You remain 100% able to practice your freedom, you remain 0% able to remove other's ability to practice the same freedoms you enjoy.

Copper Seth wrote:

I know that modern history books want to discount the role of religion in the founding of our country. However, those books ignore who these men were and what they were all about.

As a non-Christian, I can promise you, the books are plenty detailed about it. You may wish it was more prevalent, but that would be the injustice to who these people were. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some identified in other ways, but their religious views should not be framed without the sobering context of what they had fought against, religious tyranny being amongst the list.

You want this country to be a Christian nation, so of course you define these men overwhelmingly by their Christian faith. But you advert those founders like Roger Williams, who knew that they didn't need the nation and his faith mixed.

It reveals a sad insecurity on your behalf that you two feel so overwhelmingly threatened by homosexuals and gay marriage. As if it would break what you believe and love. If what you believe and love could be threatened by such a thing, then what you believe and love is not that strong.

You are the fools who build their homes in a foundation of sand, and think that it's just as good as the houses founded in stone because "sand is just a bunch of little stones."

You can't succeed at making a logical argument, but you can perpetuate a controversy. We are long past our inevitable impasse. I accept you believe what you do. Why you believe what you do is what is important in this type of setting, and I understand why you believe what you do after reading your posts. I find your ideas offensive, unacceptable and wildly unethical. I've done my part. You understand what I believe. You understand why I believe it. How you find my ideas I can care less. I ask nothing of you. You cannot say the same.

T
K
Owari

1 Reply

@blueflame1,

blueflame1 wrote:

"Prop 8: The Musical" starring Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris http://blogs.trb.com/entertainment/technology/watchthis/2008/12/prop_8_the_musical_starring_ja.html

I saw the musical skit. It sums up the hypocrisy of the religious right in less than 3 minutes. The hypocrits that belong to the religious right sift through all the books and choose what they want to "believe" and discard the rest.

If they really believed the Bible was the word of God, then they would be enslaving their enemies, subjugating women, embracing polygamy, giving a double portion of their property to their first born son, and stoning their disobedient sons to death at the entrance of every city.

Deuteronomy 21

Quote:

10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Very well said Diest.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

You surely do not need to turn to a religious arguments to know how silly same sex marriages happen to be.

It would seem that every once in a blue moon the far right religious nuts get a subject right even if for the wrong reasons.

1 Reply

Poll: Support surges for gay marriage http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Poll_Support_surges_for_gay_marriage_1206.html Cant stop the sunrise.

1 Reply

@blueflame1,

in times of crisis people want/need to come together, the appetite for culture wars is dieing. If the courts are not reversed on gay marriage it will be because of the economic/leadership crisis.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You surely do not need to turn to a religious arguments to know how silly same sex marriages happen to be.

It would seem that every once in a blue moon the far right religious nuts get a subject right even if for the wrong reasons.

How is gay marriage silly?

These people are very serious about it.
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I had already covered the subject in details but to be short the society have no stake in supporting gay relationships therefore no reason to license these private relationships or grant benefits to such couples at the expense of everyone else.

Only same sex couples are and always will be the main engine for producing and caring for the next generations and therefore the society does had a strong stake in encourging these relationships to be stable over decades.

The society gain no benefits if a gay couple live together for 5 decades or suffer no losts if they break up within months. therefore it is indeed silly to spend the resouces on such relationships.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I had already covered the subject in details but to be short the society have no stake in supporting gay relationships therefore no reason to license these private relationships or grant benefits to such couples at the expense of everyone else.

1) No stake in denying same sex couples either.
2) What "expense" does everyone else pay?

BillRM wrote:

Only same sex (<--typo?) couples are and always will be the main engine for producing and caring for the next generations and therefore the society does had a strong stake in encourging these relationships to be stable over decades.

The success of heterosexual couples is unrelated to the ability of homosexuals to get married.

BillRM wrote:

The society gain no benefits if a gay couple live together for 5 decades or suffer no losts if they break up within months. therefore it is indeed silly to spend the resouces on such relationships.

If society's resources are where you concerns lye, then there's not much interest in supporting about half of the straight marriages out there now. however to deny them access to that status would be ethically unsound. The same applies to homosexuals.

Society doesn't need to benefit from two people getting married for the state to recognize it. Having said that, gay's contribute to society plenty so why deny them marriage rights?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Sorry I do not agree.

Once more there is zero reason for the state to license any class of private sexual relationships with zero chance of producing childen within those relationships

What the hell do you think is the reason we have builded such a complexed web of laws and customs around marriages in the first place?

And it is a miscarry of justice to tell the rest of the society that in order to make gays feel better about themselves we need to lied and bring them into a legal framework never design to deal with that class of persons.

We have no stake in the length or stablity of any homosexaul relationship and we have no right to take resources and hand them over to gay couples from everyone else without such reasons.

1 Reply

Quote:

.
.
.
What we in California have been forced to confront, before anyone had even had the chance to sweep up the tinsel or plop the first Alka-Seltzers into the glasses of water after that heavenly night in Grant Park, is that there’s a big difference between coalition politics and rainbow party politics.

A coalition is composed of groups that may dislike " or even hate " one another, but who understand the shared political expediency of standing together. Rainbow party politics involve bringing together masses of people who are identified by being burdened by a particular grievance. Soon enough " in groups forged of such friable bonds, and almost always when matters of morality and lifestyle come into play " you will discover that one oppressed group does not necessarily support the goals of another oppressed group.

Hollywood, of course, is a city full of statesmen and moral authorities, and many of them ran to their pulpits and Web sites to get on the right side of this issue, but there was no way to hold both truths together in a position that was both acceptably liberal and coherent. “At some point in our lifetime,” said George Clooney, “gay marriage won’t be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black.”

To the opponents of Proposition 8, this kind of analogy is a rallying cry; but as white Hollywood has recently discovered, to the blacks who voted for the measure, it’s galling. Comparing the infringement on civil rights that gays are experiencing to that suffered by black Americans is to begin a game of “top my oppression” that you’re not going to win. The struggle for equality " beginning with freedom from human bondage (see: references to the book of Exodus at the Gospel Brunch) " has been so central to African-American identity that many blacks find homosexual claims of a commensurate level of injustice frivolous, and even offensive.

.
.
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07flanagan.htm?pagewanted=1&_r=1

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know