How Quick we are to Judge!

[k]

What source (s) are being used to define "Marriage?"

 

[CSMR]

What source (s) are being used to define "Marriage?"

We get a good idea of what marriage is in the Bible. Not perfect, but a good idea.

 

[k]

We get a good idea of what marriage is in the Bible. Not perfect, but a good idea.

Lol...very true. Think I was asking because the Bible cannot be used to argue against Gay Marriages. Unless of course we wish to forget:

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Bible cannot be used because if it is, then Congress would be making Christianity the National Religion.

 

[CSMR]

Lol...very true. Think I was asking because the Bible cannot be used to argue against Gay Marriages. Unless of course we wish to forget:

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Bible cannot be used because if it is, then Congress would be making Christianity the National Religion.

Neverstop, that is not true because the law itself would not be establishing a religion, or respecting the establishment of religion. The justification of the law is one thing, and the law is another. What the law would establish (say no "gay" marriage) would not establish a religion, since neither "marrying" nor not "marrying" another person of the same sex is a religion.

 

[k]

Neverstop, that is not true because the law itself would not be establishing a religion, or respecting the establishment of religion. The justification of the law is one thing, and the law is another. What the law would establish (say no "gay" marriage) would not establish a religion, since neither "marrying" nor not "marrying" another person of the same sex is not a religion.

True, the singular law would not make any particular religion the national religion. Overstepped that one, thanks for pointing it out.:o Was looking at it sort of as one would for circumstantial evidence in the courtroom. Stack enough of the laws up, and there appears to be an implicit national religion.

Guess the question is who has the authority to define "marriage" with respect to the Constitution? What source(s) would be used? With respect to the 1st Amendment, it doesn't seem any religious text may be used, even in justifying the law.

 

[CSMR]

Guess the question is who has the authority to define "marriage" with respect to the Constitution? What source(s) would be used? With respect to the 1st Amendment, it doesn't seem any religious text may be used, even in justifying the law.

Congress has the authority, not to define marriage itself, but to define laws relating to marriage - perhaps even to define how the word marriage must be used. At any rate it is Congress that has all authority over legislation subject to the Constitution. Congress also has the authority to change the Constitution according to the terms of the Constitution. The Constitution does not limit the arguments that can be used - good and bad arguments can be used*. Whatever creates support within congress. The Constitution does not exercise thought control; it exercises control over laws only.

(*In fact if Congress tried to limit the arguments that it could use to disallow religious arguments, it appears to me that the first amendment would prohibit it, since that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.)

 

[k]

So it seems they may define marriage in a sleight of hand way. I see the "free exercise of religion" piece speaking to personal/formal worship in an individual's church of choice, not in justifying law.

If one is able to use the Bible for an argument to make laws, why is the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
piece there?

 

[CSMR]

So it seems they may define marriage in a sleight of hand way. I see the "free exercise of religion" piece speaking to personal/formal worship in an individual's church of choice, not in justifying law.

OK, that may well be true; a matter of interpretation.

If one is able to use the Bible for an argument to make laws, why is the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
piece there?

Er...to stop Congress from making any laws that establish or disestablish a religion.

 

[robot23]

No.
Marriage is more than just two people. "Just two people" is shacking up. Marriage involves the melding of family lines. The fact that not all marriages produce children is irrelevant;

and why can't the family lines be melded when it is 2 men or 2 women, if in fact that reproduction is irrelevant
if it is irrelevent then it wouldn't matter

If a majority of the people in a soceity do not wish marraige to be defined as anything except the union of one male to one female, and if the extremely tiny minority that wants gay marriage can get all the legal/tax breaks/perks they want through civil unions, are not the activists the ones who are in the wrong?

the majority should not decide what is right for the minority
that's not justice
this is just a way of saying most people dont like it so it shouldnt be
which of course is ridiculous
just because a group is in a minority doesn't mean that they deserve justice and equality
i wont even use slavery as an example even though it fits in this case
my opinion, for what it is worth, is that marriage is no ones business but the people involved and thier families
society could care less about my marriage or yours or anyone else's
denying someone the right to marry someone in the guise of religion, or what the majority of society wants is simply intrusive bigotry concealed
who cares if two gay people marry each other?
it's their business not yours

 

[creep]

different sins seem to fall in and out of vogue. like now cheating on your spouse isn't seen to be as bad as say, stealing.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

See, here's where you (rhetorical) keep running into the same logical falllacy again and again and again and again and again:

African-Americans reproduce. Europeans reproduce. Tall people reproduce. Dwarves even reproduce (kinda hit & miss, but often enough for multi-generations).

Gays do not reproduce.

Nor do elderly women, nor do eunichs, nor do quadrapelegics (sp)

Oh, sure, they can biologically produce offspring, and those offpsring or offspring they've adopted are extremely likely to grow up sharing their parents' views on tolerating homosexual behavior.

Relavence?

Just for the record, their offspring are also extremely likely to grow up as well adjusted, positively contributing members of society.

But the children are no more likely to be actual homosexuals themselves than any random dip in the gene pool.

The rather weak evidence we have at this point suggests that is not true, but regardless, of what relevence is that?

In this sense, gays are like Christians: They can not biologically produce a new generation of their own kind, they must recruit others in.

In the case of gays, they need to persuade those who have phsyiological and/or psychological leanings towards homosexual behavior to embrace the self-defined gay lifestyle.

The only way the above statement is anything but absolute **** is if you state that heterosexuals do the exact same thing.

The difference between the gay sub-culture <snip>

And which "gay sub-culture" would that be?

paraphrase of Buzz: Homosexuality is a mutation that doesn't breed true.

Yeesh, if the physiological tendency toward homosexuality is genetic,
and the evidence does suggest there is a genetic componant, it could well be a recessive gene, there may also be factors in the womb. Whatever post-birth factors come into play they appear to be pretty benevolent since there does not seem to be any common thread or even set of common threads that can be found in the upbringing of homosexuals.

Marriage is not just for two people who have the warm fuzzies for each other. Marriage is for two familial bloodlines joining together. Marriage is for a community, and past that community a society as a whole to best maintain societal order, justice, and stablility.

And this prevents gays from getting married, how? Unless of course you intend to do fertility testing of all heterosexual couples. The only reason it wouldn't apply would be because one or both of the family bloodlines includes a substantial number of bigots ... ah but that applies to interracial marriage as well, so we are back where we started.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Guess the question is who has the authority to define "marriage" with respect to the Constitution? What source(s) would be used? With respect to the 1st Amendment, it doesn't seem any religious text may be used, even in justifying the law.

All rights not given to the government belong to the people. If the people choose to ban gay marriage (and they have by sizeable margins whenever the issue has come up in state referrendums), then gay marriage by law is illegal.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

different sins seem to fall in and out of vogue. like now cheating on your spouse isn't seen to be as bad as say, stealing.

Or smoking...

 

[robot23]

the legality of gay marriage is done state by state in the US and province to province in Canada,
some have it, some dont
just because the majority want something doesn't make it just, ethical or morally right, nor should their views take away any rights from the minority

 

[Buzz Dixon]

the majority should not decide what is right for the minority

No, the majority should decide what is right for the society as a whole. Some people are pedophiles; society has a right to proscribe that behavior no matter how much they enjoy it. Some people are nearsighted; society has a right to insist they wear corrective lenses if they wish to operate a motor vehicle.

just because a group is in a minority doesn't mean that they deserve justice and equality

Yes, precisely! Justice and equality are concepts that exist outside of group identity. We are not to judge people negatively because they have money, or positively because they are poor; both are projections of bias, in the former a bias that all wealthy people didn't get their wealth honestly and in the latter that all poor people are saintly. To assume a group is automatically being denied its rights and justice just because they don't get what they want when they want it is bias, too.

marriage is no ones business but the people involved and thier families
society could care less about my marriage or yours or anyone else's

No, again, that's shacking up. Society should not offer certain protections and benefits to relationships that may prove harmful to society as a whole. Mariage is a connection to a much bigger thing. If you (rhetorical) want to have a roomie, go right ahead. If you want a marriage, you need to be willing to accept what society defines as a marriage.

denying someone the right to marry someone in the guise of religion, or what the majority of society wants is simply intrusive bigotry concealed
who cares if two gay people marry each other?
it's their business not yours

Well, who cares if what's advertised as milk is really just flour and water?

A thing is what it is, and attempting to change it through legal fiat is futile at best.

You (rhetorical) can't legislate a shopping cart into a Cadillac simply because they're both made of steel and have four wheels.

 

[robot23]

Society should not offer certain protections and benefits to relationships that may prove harmful to society as a whole. Mariage is a connection to a much bigger thing.

i don't see how gay marriage harms society as a whole, having people who love each other commited to each other in a ceremony cannot harm society,
and just because a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean it is beneficial to society, not all marriages are good things, many end in divorce, disaster etc,
and what bigger thing is marriage connected to?
you can call it shacking up all you want, doesn't mean its true,

We are not to judge people negatively because they have money, or positively because they are poor

or negatively because they are gay,

A thing is what it is, and attempting to change it through legal fiat is futile at best

no it isn't, slavery was slavery untill it was made illegal, then it was a crime, laws change, society changes, some peoples views do not but society is always changing hopefully towards being more understanding of all people, not excluding people and denying them rights and privelages that the rest share based on bigotry and ignorance

 

[robot23]

my point is that just because people (let's say most people) don't want gay people to get married doesn't mean they shouldn't
it doesn't harm anyone,
and i will say again
marriage is no one elses business
i can't see why MY marriage is anyone's business let alone anyone else's

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Marriage is also something the society as a whole has a vested interest in clearly defining and then supporting. If a majority of the people in a soceity do not wish marraige to be defined as anything except the union of one male to one female, and if the extremely tiny minority that wants gay marriage can get all the legal/tax breaks/perks they want through civil unions, are not the activists the ones who are in the wrong?

Except that, as I already pointed out, a civil union is not the same as
marriage in the eyes of federal laws, and there are well over 1000
federal laws that kick into gear because a couple is married.

As I also said, I would be happy to see civil unions for the time being.

 

[k]

All rights not given to the government belong to the people. If the people choose to ban gay marriage (and they have by sizeable margins whenever the issue has come up in state referrendums), then gay marriage by law is illegal.

There is something called the Rule of Law, and one of the tenets within that is to ensure people will not overrule Constitutional Law.

Someone else pointed out the absurdity of justifying a law simply because more people voted for it. There needs to be at least one valid argument against gay marriage, and through this entire thread, I haven't seen one. Opinions and emotions are not arguments.

What's kind of ironic about all of this is that while we are debating, thousands of gays are living a "married" life. The only difference is they don't receive the benefits. This is about Civil Rights, and it is uncivil to tell two people who love each other that they aren't entitled to the same rights as a hetero married couple. It is bigotry, nothing more, nothing less. It's an ugly word because it defines and reveals an ugly mindset towards others.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Except that, as I already pointed out, a civil union is not the same as
marriage in the eyes of federal laws, and there are well over 1000
federal laws that kick into gear because a couple is married.

That can all be fixed with the flick of a pen.

So, ya wanna get your tax/legal breaks, or do you wanna throw a hissy fit over a name?