Gay Marriage

[Chairboy]

Once again, that's fine that you believe that, but it should not have a bearing on whether or not the law of the united states is changed to prohibit it.

This is not yet officially a theocracy, despite the best efforts of many to make it into one.

Christian commandments and laws should NOT be used to change the constitution, lest the 1st amendment become violated by the establishment of state religion.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Nash
Hey Seagoon.

Well, I too believe in inalienable rights. That have existed, forever.

But just because a belief about those rights rose up, does not mean that this belief and its believers can now presume to call them their own. And then to talk to me about how, if I don't particularly care for those beliefs, that I must not care about those inalienable rights.

Nobody owns them. That includes the church.

That's what makes them inalienable.

Howdy Nash,

I'm curious. In your system what is the source of these inalienable rights, how are they granted, and how are they revealed and received? And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?

For instance, in the Christian Theistic system, these rights are part of the moral law of God, they were given by Him to man and they are revealed via His own special revelation (scripture/infallible) and natural revelation (the conscience/fallible). One discerns between truth and error by reference to what his scripture states, so if I have a fallible conviction that theft might be ok, I test that conviction via his infallible word.

- SEAGOON

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by SOB
So as not to hijack the other thread about child custody, I'll bring this to a new thread.


Not to single out Urchin, but I think this statement sums up exactly the misconception that fuels the drive against gay marriage.  This issue is not about religious marriage.  It is about civil marriage, and in no way involves any church that doesn't want to be a part of it.  Civil marriage is performed by a civil authority and the church is not involved...you are just legally recognized as a married couple.

Were it not for this misconception, I think a lot more of the middle-of-the-road folks would be leaning the othe rway on this issue.  I imagine a lot of folks just don't like the idea that this would be forced on their church, and mistakenly think that's what at stake here.

The ONE topic missed in "Gay Marriage" discussions, is this:  Gay's SHOULD NOT be entitled to the same Benefits that my wife and I have.   Anything else, let them have at it, if they enjoy legalized sodomy, etc, let em.  

Karaya

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, that's fine that you believe that, but it should not have a bearing on whether or not the law of the united states is changed to prohibit it.

This is not yet officially a theocracy, despite the best efforts of many to make it into one.

Christian commandments and laws should NOT be used to change the constitution, lest the 1st amendment become violated by the establishment of state religion.

Chairboy,

It's actually the other way round.

If the USA had been established by modern secular humanists who denied the existence of absolutes and had created state and federal laws legalizing Homosexual marriages and I was attempting to overturn those laws via religious arguments, your statement would hold true.

However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.

Those laws, starting in the 20th century have been progressively struck down.

What we are discussing is the continuing attempt to entirely decriminalize everything to do with sexual practices once regarded to be perverse and unlawful in the USA. Specifically, we are discussing the wisdom of creating a new right allowing homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender, i.e. Gay Marriage.

All I'm asking is that we simply acknowledge where the change is coming from, this is manifestly not a case of radical Christians trying to criminalize something long allowed in the USA.

- SEAGOON

[Holden McGroin]

In the civil world, one (two) gets a license to marry, and goes through a ceremony to get married.

They do this to get a sanction of the relationship by society.

This means they want society's approval of that relationship.

Currently, society does not approve of homosexual marraige, but forces are at hand that wish to change that fact.

If you wish society to approve of your behavior, you need to behave within the rules of that society.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy Nash,

I'm curious. In your system what is the source of these inalienable rights, how are they granted, and how are they revealed and received? And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?

For instance, in the Christian Theistic system, these rights are part of the moral law of God, they were given by Him to man and they are revealed via His own special revelation (scripture/infallible) and natural revelation (the conscience/fallible). One discerns between truth and error by reference to what his scripture states, so if I have a fallible conviction that theft might be ok, I test that conviction via his infallible word.

- SEAGOON

Hey Seagoon,

Lets get one thing out of the way, first. I really don't know much about this stuff. My understanding could probably best be described only as a sense. I could have it completely wrong and would not be surprised were it so. So if my explanation is hard to understand, believe me, it won't be your fault.

The source of these inalienable rights is ultimately inconceivable, but I'm fine with the word "God" just for expediency's sake. I don't believe that they were granted by God, but that they are just natural - a "way." It sounds trite, but I believe that these inalienable rights exist because that's just the way it is. They can no more be granted than I could grant you a square foot section of water in some river.

So to answer your first question, they are not granted... they are experienced.

How are they revealed and received? In my view, they are not so much revealed as discovered. They have always existed and always will, and man simply becomes more aware of them as he ages. I think it's less an accident that on one side of the world you had "Do unto others...." and on the other "Consider others as yourself," than it is evidence of the awareness of this. Certainly both men came to the same conclusion, yet there'd be some dispute as to how they arrived there.

"And how may one discern between truth and error in considering them?" I think our conscience guides us. For the most part, we have an innate sense of right and wrong. Justice and injustice. So we describe certain rights as inalienable, because to deprive us of them would be unconscionable.

So where we mainly differ is the source. You submit that God granted us these rights. I submit that in a strange way, God is these rights. If I choose to accept your belief that these rights are given, then it follows that they can be taken away. God isn't frozen in cryogenic chamber, and we're all aware of how many updates and patches the Bible has been through to get us to Christianity v20.05. First he giveth then he taketh away. Or some might say....

To me it's quite simple. In order to be inalienable they cannot be owned. They cannot be spoken for. They just are.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
To me it's quite simple. In order to be inalienable they cannot be owned. They cannot be spoken for. They just are.

but they can be fought for.

[Nash]

Yup. They can be alotta things for.

Owned, given, and received they cannot.

imho.

[Holden McGroin]

I think the US Constitution's writers agree with you Nash, that's why the first amendment does not give us the rights of freedom of the press, religion, speech and assembly.

The first amendment prohibits congress from passing laws which diminish the rights citizens are born with.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Seagoon
If the USA had been established by modern secular humanists who denied the existence of absolutes and had created state and federal laws legalizing Homosexual marriages and I was attempting to overturn those laws via religious arguments, your statement would hold true.

However, the USA was actually established by men who believed in natural laws that devolved from their Creator, and who based their own legislation on them. They and those who followed them accordingly crafted laws outlawing not only homosexual marriage, but the practice of homosexual sex.

Those laws, starting in the 20th century have been progressively struck down.

What we are discussing is the continuing attempt to entirely decriminalize everything to do with sexual practices once regarded to be perverse and unlawful in the USA. Specifically, we are discussing the wisdom of creating a new right allowing homosexuals to marry persons of their own gender, i.e. Gay Marriage.

All I'm asking is that we simply acknowledge where the change is coming from, this is manifestly not a case of radical Christians trying to criminalize something long allowed in the USA.

- SEAGOON

Respectfully disagree... This is developing into a three cornered fight between Church Doctrine vs the Doctrine of Law in America vs The Will of the People with the prize being the legal laws society will have to live by...

The Doctrine of Law in America makes no mention of Religious Qualification or Requirements relative to a Marriage, no Church Approvals are required for such a Union.

With regards to the devoutness or piety of the Creators of the Nation, may I remind you that they clearly defined a seperation between Church and State. Had they intended for Church Law to be the Law of the Land we would certainly have had a significantly different document come outta the Constitutional Congress.

Regardless of how much the idea legalized gay marriage annoys me, reality dictates that neither the Church or the State will have much luck legislating gays outta existance.. any more than the Church or the State has been successful in legislating murder, rape, incest, drugs and corruption outta existance. No matter WHAT the Church or State says or does.. 'they're queer, they're here.."

Frankly, I'd rather they crawled back into whatever closets they live in and stayed the heck off my babble box. I'm hugely unimpressed by thier strident whines for 'equality' and I suspect most 'straight' folks once they get over their knee-jerk PC 'approval' of the 'rights of gays' will quietly vote their propositions into oblivion should they try and force the issue with the electorate.

On the other hand I'd watch the Supreme Court.. THERE's where they stand the greatest chance of 'success' in their efforts for 'recognition'.

Wouldn't be the first time the SC ruled in a different direction than popular opinion.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Regardless of how much the idea legalized gay marriage annoys me, reality dictates that neither the Church or the State will have much luck legislating gays outta existance.. any more than the Church or the State has been successful in legislating murder, rape, incest, drugs and corruption outta existance.

The issue is not homosexuality itself, but whether society will recognise gay marriage as a legitimate union.

We legislate rules on the choice of a marraige partner based on age, genetic closeness, and the number of partners. So to me it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say that rules regulating the gender of partners are legitimate.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Hangtime Frankly, I'd rather they crawled back into whatever closets they live in and stayed the heck off my babble box. I'm hugely unimpressed by thier strident whines for 'equality' and I suspect most 'straight' folks once they get over their knee-jerk PC 'approval' of the 'rights of gays' will quietly vote their propositions into oblivion should they try and force the issue with the electorate.

Knee-jerk PC approval ? Why the hell should I be against it ?

I see no logical reason to oppose it. Does it bother me that they want the same rights as I have ? Nope, it only seems fair.

[Holden McGroin]

You have the right to marry your same gender Avro?

In Oregon and 48 other states, we don't... and never did...  Gay or straight

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin You have the right to marry your same gender Avro?

Yes I do. Quebec allows same sex marriages and Canada's government will pass a law this week for it.
One of my cousin got a civil union with her girlfriend.

They do not have the same rights as you do since they don't have the right to marry who they love, which is what marriage is about. To me it's a contract between 2 persons who swear to be faithfull to each other.

If it's right for me to be able to marry who I love then it's also right for gays. It would be hypocritical for me to say the contrary.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by AVRO1
Knee-jerk PC approval ? Why the hell should I be against it ?

I see no logical reason to oppose it. Does it bother me that they want the same rights as I have ? Nope, it only seems fair.

AGAIN, Gays should NOT be entitled to the same benefits my wife and I have.   It goes beyond "rights".

Karaya