Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)I saw your Supreme Court citation. Could you provide more info on who said it? I am trying to find the case it was said in and under what context it was said. I find that quote disturbing on a number of levels, if nothing else that the judge seems to think that businesses closing on Sunday is observing the Sabbath.
While it didn't set a legal precedent, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court and presented as a given fact. Did you see a dissenting opinion in that case about the notion?I found it. It is almost an offhand remark in that opinion. It sets not legal precedence and, therefor, is just the opinion of the justice in question. The case had nothing to do with the US being a Christian nation or not, it was about immigration.
You've already responded to my other points (arguments). You know what they are.Currently, yes. But in a generation or two, when the opposite is true, what will you argument be then?
Because marriage is a contract, nothing more or less. If consent is not there, the contract is null and void.Who said the animal has to sign? Why does marriage even have to be a matter of consent?
I disagree. I support same sex marriage because I see it as a 'values' issue. I value equality. I value freedom. I value these ideals higher than I value my discomfort of seeing two men kiss.When you look at gay marriage and all the arguments you quickly find that it does come down to a matter of values for both sides but only one side admits it. The other side hides from it because they know if they make it a matter of values, they lose. Most people's values are against gay marriage.
I'm always curious why people refuse to help people understand their argument by reiterating their points.The links are still in the thread. They aren't hard to find when you search this thread and use my name.
I apologised for any offence caused and said it was not my intention to offend. What more do you want?How was it not your intent to offend or be condescending by using the language you did? You didn't hurt my feelings by the way. I have to respect an opinion before my feelings can be hurt by it.
I did no such thing. I am religious, yet what I said didn't condescend to me or anyone else based on religion. I accepted you found my term condescending to a certain POV, and I have apologised for that and said it was not my intent.You need to apologize not about hurt feelings but for being condescending to the religious.
Which quote would that be?Then you'll be able to explain your quote.
Which approach? Saying that people should be allowed to do what they like unless there is a very good reason to stop them? Its one of those "free society" things... right up there with life, is liberty and the pursuit of happiness... if being allowed to do what you want because you want to doesn't fit in there, then I'd like to know what you think "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" entails? Or do you hold that people should not be allowed to do what they want unless it complies with the particular views of acceptibility of some arbitrary ruling authority?how about you explain your first approach, first?
You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.My argument that people should be allowed to live the life they choose for themselves, in peace, and have the ability to have the rights and privileges within that life they choose that others are afforded is certainly about values. It is about the ideal of freedom this country was founded on and the fact that denying people rights you enjoy is fundamentally wrong.
While it didn't set a legal precedent, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court and presented as a given fact. Did you see a dissenting opinion in that case about the notion?
Also, you might want to review the other link to the Library of Congress.
x2.The funny thing is that homosexual marriage doesn't effect me one bit. I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends or family who are gay. I just see it as a denial of rights and that bothers me. Nobody is going to have a single issue when I marry my fiance (well, except maybe certain members of our families, but one cannot escape that). I just feel it sad that I am allowed to pick the person I want to marry and I cannot imagine wanting to find another person when there are others out there right now who are being told "No, sorry mate, you gotta find someone else, we don't approve."
Property need not consent. A parent can consent for a child. Consent ages are somewhat arbitrary.Because marriage is a contract, nothing more or less. If consent is not there, the contract is null and void.
Then you support incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages and since animals do no consent, a man marrying his property, right?I disagree. I support same sex marriage because I see it as a 'values' issue. I value equality. I value freedom. I value these ideals higher than I value my discomfort of seeing two men kiss.
Actually... I seem to recall something about "seperation of Church and state" being one of the founding values, rather than "conservative religious values". Since much of the initial colonisation of America was done to ESCAPE from religious intolerance, you'd kinda think that religious freedom is far more a founding value than religious conformity and theocracy.You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.
You speak about ideals of this country then you ignore its history. Homosexuality was had absolutely no place in the society of the founders except in a closet. I don't say that to be mean but to put homosexuality in the perspective of the founders. That was but one ideal they founded this country on. Conservative religious values. They then framed a government around it. Again, I refer you back to the Library of Congress link.
But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.The funny thing is that homosexual marriage doesn't effect me one bit. I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends or family who are gay. I just see it as a denial of rights and that bothers me. Nobody is going to have a single issue when I marry my fiance (well, except maybe certain members of our families, but one cannot escape that). I just feel it sad that I am allowed to pick the person I want to marry and I cannot imagine wanting to find another person when there are others out there right now who are being told "No, sorry mate, you gotta find someone else, we don't approve."
Incestuous, polygamous and inappropriate behavior with animals marriages involve a breach of consent. It is a social standard (arbitrary, maybe,m but thats the society we live in) that consent is more important than property rights in certain cases. For example, I OWN my dog, yet I am not permitted to skin him alive, beautiful though his coat may be, because he would not consent to the procedure. Likewise, I would not be permitted to marry him, because he doesn't consent.Property need not consent. A parent can consent for a child. Consent ages are somewhat arbitrary.
Then you support incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages and since animals do no consent, a man marrying his property, right?
And in that case, we can agree to disagree but thanks for your view nonetheless.
I'd love a couple of examples of "traditional rights" that have been denied in the wake of acceptance of homosexual rights.But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.
But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.
But marriage goes beyond a private intimate relationship. As has been precedent in other countries, recognition of gay rights leads to the denial of traditional rights.
Children now must submit to education about homosexuality. Religions are silenced for speaking against homosexuality under hate speech laws. Citizens must accomodate gays whether they find their behavior immoral or not. And so on.
Were it merely a matter of a private relationship, I'd have no problem.
How does that work? Is there a specific clause in the legislation?In fact, one could argue that because of the bill that legalized SSM, religious groups are now more protected than they were before because they have explicit protection for their opposition to homosexual behaviour.
I am pushing for it to be a Christian nation? Where?A black man also had no place, except as a slave or, perhaps, a freeman who had no voice in the government. If you want to claim it is a Christian founded nation, then you must not ignore the history. Christianity then aided in the persecution and slaughter of the Native Americans. It aided in the propagation of slavery into the 1800s. You cannot back away from those ideas. Personally, I prefer to see it as a secular nation that made mistakes in those regards, but you are the one pushing for it to be a Christian nation.
Yes and no. I agree that our government was designed to be able to change. Unfortunately it changes more through judicial activism than the appropriate ammendment process.The rule of law has progressed past the 1700s. Many cases have been settled between the case you listed, 1892, and today. The brilliance of the American government system is the ability for it to change and grow. You cannot simply ignore inconvenient history to push forth your own ideal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?