Halx

You, my friend, need to learn more about nature.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

SecretMethod70

[Devil's Advocate]

Let's see how genius you believe the founding fathers to be now Dude ....

<hr>

I'm getting tired of seeing people reference the "genius" of the founding fathers in claiming dthat religion has no part effecting our government. Believe in freedom FROM religion all you want, but start a new movement for a new amendment then, because the current one assures freedom OF religion. One need only look to the person who WROTE IT to see that.

I'm all for working to get a new amendment in there that does what people wish to believe the first amendment does. That's the right of US citizens. But to intentionally misconstrue the intentions of the founding fathers - and then label them geniuses for it! Call them geniuses for what they intended, not what you wish they intended. And if you feel they left something out - such as the freedom FROM religion - work to get it put in. Don't accept people in goverment who are willing to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and twist the meanings of their words in order to create a situation to their liking because it's easier than going about it the right way.

[/Devil's Advocate]

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

redravin40

Since we bring up the Founding Fathers here are a few quotes.

Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Ben Franklin


Not a founding father but a great president

Quote:

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) The 16th President of the United States (1861-1865) My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged. It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.

James Madison

Quote:

Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State. The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

Stop me before I quote again.

The basic deal is that we will slowly but surely have to start recognizing same sex marriages as people move from countries where they are legal to the United States.
When one state makes it legal then all the others will have to eventually follow despite the bigotry.

Phaenx

Say, Abraham Lincoln was a republican wasn't he? Does this mean you're going to start fighting for the side of good?

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

SecretMethod70

Let's not start getting overly sarcastic here please.

Besides, don't forget that the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln's day was actually quite liberal for the climate in which it was in.

Red,

Yes, those are some interesting pieces as well. I read each to be speaking of Christian denominations persecuting other Christian denominations - a primary reason people settled onto America.

Most applicable to that interpretation is the quote you provide which, at face value, seems most damning.

" The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

I see no reason to see this as a condemnation of religion itself but merely a condemnation of the religious persecution the first amendemnt was created to prevent - a state-sponsored religion.

Either way, you have one of 2 things - either you have a group of founding fathers who are appalled by Christians persecuting other Christians but, for the most part (note that, IIRC, Franklin and Jefferson were among the few founding fathers who were not Christian of some sort) believe in the general good of Christian teachings, or you have a group of founding fathers who are no less two-faced as the politicians today.

Either way, they are undeserving of being called geniuses in regard to their stance on religion and its relation to the state in the way people are doing it. Either they disagree with you or we have no idea WHAT they thought on the subject because of their contrary statements.

Personally, I find the former more likely, especially when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. First, there is no question as to the motives of Fisher Ames, and there is not a more reliable source to look to when trying to decipher the first amendment. And second, when interpreting the constitution, I find it much more erasonable to look to things they said while they were drafting it than otherwise (see Benjamin Franklin's call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention).


We digress however, I simply wanted to point out that the founding fathers and the first amendment aren't exactly things to fall back on in this debate.

You are right about the future of same sex marriages however, and I think that's exactly how it ought to be. It is, in my opinion, the government's duty to reflect the social mores of its people, and when those mores change, the laws ought to as well.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

4thTimeLucky

*I would just like to make it clear that I am acting as devil's advocate here, because the anti-gay-marriage arguments that are being posted seem to revolve around the blunt claim "its against nature" and the fact that anuses are not designed to receive penises. I find this particularly weak (especially given the fact that nature seems to have created the male body such that anal sex is peleasurable to it, whereas women - due to the position of the prostate I think - do not find it as pleasurable) and am trying to come up with some stronger arguments, because I think everyone has the right to a good defence*

That being said,

I was stupid.
I missed the fourth big biblical ban on sex: Incest.
Incestuous marriage is still illegal today.
So we have....

1) sodomy (consentual)
2) incest (consentual)
3) rape (non-consentual)
4) bestiality (non-consentual)
5) paedophilia (non-consentual)


So manalone and all those who are in favour of homosexual marriage. You say that the new moral guidelines about sex and marriage are draw along the lines of consent, so...
Should a brother and sister who love each other (and have no plans to have natural children - just as two men have no plans to have natural children) be allowed to marry?
Should a mother and son (who is smart, of legal age and in romantic love) be allowed to marry?

If they should.... well all credit to you for sticking to your libertarian guns. I just hope you are genuinely comfortable with your conclusions and not just saying 'yes' because you feel you have to.
If they should not... why does the consent and freedom argument only apply to homosexuals and not members of the same family?

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

SecretMethod70

4th,

heh.


One thing I don't understand is why it's so hard to accept that different people have different views of nature though.

The natural state of man is something philosophers have debated for centuries and will continue to debate for centuries to come, and despite all attempts to look at it from a scientific perspective, when people are speaking of "nature" in terms of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, I'm pretty sure they mean something more metaphysical.

So, with it being impossible to determine what the natural state of man is to anywhere near the level of certainty that one can state that, in non-vector mathematics, 2+2=4, what makes the argument that it is against nature weak?

Since it's impossible to know the metaphysical nature of man beyond conjectures and faith, what makes the argument of a person who puts faith in the Bible and says that homosexuality is against the metaphysical nature of man any more or less weak than the argument of someone who places no faith in anything but man itself? Neither is any more capable of determining what the "natural" metaphysical state is than the other.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

manalone

Women do not have prostate glands, men do; ergo male/male anal sex is natural, male/female is not

(I'm just being flippant)

Very good point. Hmm... It's a bit of a special case, since there is a potential suggestion of undue influence before consent can be given (particularly in the parent/child scenario).

Taking aside the very strong genetic reasons for not permitting such unions to produce children, it's hard to reject such things.

I have to say I can't think of a reason why not, so I will say yes to permitting such unions.

However, there is a requirement that no issue come of such marriages.

I think I should point out once again that reason is not the basis simplicitor for my opinions. I also take into account the thoughts of the majority. (what a buy out! - I hear you say)

In this case, I have no personal opinion on the matter, and so I will permit societal standards to form my thoughts and oppose legal recognition of that form of union.

But it is important to note that we have strayed significantly from the point. The question is legal recognition of relationships (marriages) of homosexuals. This practice is (in Europe for the most part anyway) not itself illegal. Incest, Paedophilia and Bestiality are illegal in of themselves.

So, the problem becomes, *if* incest were legal, should we permit marriages of incestuous couples? I guess so, but that requires many intermediate steps.

Have I dodged the question? I'm not sure.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

manalone

Hmm... what about this?

Incestuous relationships are not valid because they are not between independent individuals. The principle of marriage is intended to link two people not otherwise intertwined. To estabilsh a bond of family between them.

This is not possible where such a bond already exists.

Does that hold up?

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

smarm

I enter this with some trepidation, but I believe incestuous relationships are not valid because they pose the real danger of offspring with genetic flaws/defects. I do not believe that homosexual relationship present the same dangers.

Regards....

4thTimeLucky

Sorry, but nope.

Remember that marriage is not just intended to create a family bond (and certainly not just any old family bond - we wouldn't say to a gay couple, "Can't marry? Never mind, why don't you try and adopt one another?"). You are forgetting your own words (which I labelled Premise 9):

EDIT:> And as for "Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not" that is a cop out. Because (i) the laws on this vary between regions and besides, we are trying to go beyond laws here so we can decide what should be and not what is, (ii) the laws on a borther and sister not having sex seems to stem from the exact same (biblical/conservative?) tradition that has made homosexual sex illegal for so long - to have archaic laws as both the target of your argument and its support seems a little problematic.

Good try though manalone

And smarm, reread my post. I tried to cut you off at the pass on this one. They are a smart couple and have decided not to have natural children (they would adopt like a homosexual couple). If you want to be even more certain. They are smart, don't want to conceive and have had an operation to ensure that there are no 'accidents' - they love each other and want to have happy healthy babies, which means adopting.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

The_Dude

yes, they might all have been belivers in supernatural, but they didnt put any of that into the constitution. they knew how messed up it was going to get if they mixed religion and govt. they kept them as seperate entities.

even though the constitution doesnt explicitly state the seperation of church and state, a long list of supreme court cases have. government should not make policy based on what the church deems as acceptable

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

SecretMethod70

That long list of Supreme Court cases doesn't start until about 1960 - before then, the Supreme Court has decisions which actually came to nearly opposite conclusions of what you espouse.

In 1890, the Supreme Court stated in a ruling:

1892, the famous (infamous?) Holy Trinity v. US:

1902, again regarding polygamy:

It wasn't until the late 20th century that the "wall" seperating church and state extended beyond being one way, protecting the state from the church, as well as the church from the state.


As for not putting it into the constitution, do you mean to suggest that Fisher Ames wrote the first amendment with the intention of keeping religion from having any influence on government and then would defy his very work by suggesting as a congressman that the Bible be taught in schools? Unless he was bipolar I fail to see how that's likely.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

The_Dude

the US government is supposed to be secular, meaning no affiliation w/ any religion.

if the government is going to make policy that exclusively is meant to please a certain religious group, that secularity is gone.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

4thTimeLucky

Forgive me if I don't accept that as the end of that particular debate.
I do not believe that not wanting yourself to be photographed is on a par with wanting to burn yourself alive or make human sacrifices. It is more on a par with say, animal sacrifices - an issue which America (I didn't list in the list of countries I gave last time, but I've done some reading and it should join them) recognises the need to give believers an exception to respect their practices.

EDIT:> Actually, I've given the wife burning thing some thought and maybe I would include that in the list of things governments should not interfere with. After all, the government cannot force a Jehovah's Witness to accept a blood transfusion to save their life, so I can see a case for saying that the government shouldn't prevent a person committing suicide if that is what their religion dictates. The government is quite happy to let us give our lives for our country, why shouldn't it let us give our lives for our God?

****

I am still open for taking answers to my incest question.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

SecretMethod70

The point, dude, is that the significant majority of our founding fathers (all but a couple) did not agree with you in that point.

Take a look at George Washington, just as an example,

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge THE Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor."


I have no problem with people believing that what you say ought to be the case at all, the only point is that that is not what the founding fathers thought, and, were current laws interpreted as the way those who drafted them intended them to be interpreted, there is nothing in law that says such a thing.

It's not a matter of saying that your opinion that government should be completely sterile of religion is necessarily wrong, it's just a simple matter of fact that for it to truly be legally the case (rather than having bastardizations of laws as we have currently), something along the lines of a new constitutional amendment must be written.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

manalone

No no. Wait a moment. I have obviously not made myself clear.

Try thinking of it as Marriage as a institution which confers ties on two people who do not otherwise have those entitlements. In that specific definition, familial marriages are invalid because the basic requirement of two people being independent from one another is not fulfilled.

You see, its not a valid example if you exclude the genetic issue.
(you cheater :P)

It's the source of the taboo, you see. Ignore the Bible, which is arguably irrelevent (the Romans also had laws on incest. Much of Western Legal and Social morays are from this civilisation also).

But in any case, I disagree. The point is that we are recognising the legitimacy of a legal relationship, or we are recognising the legitimacy of an illegal union.

You have to separate the issues, otherwise the argument is too muddled to make any progress.

Should a state acknowledge marriage of an illegal union (including homosexual ones where that is illegal)? Obviously not.

But on the other hand, if you wish to debate the morality of homosexuality or (insert sexual practice of choice) then that is a separate issue, and furthermore, should a state recognise the union of legitimate relationships? Well, I think so.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

4thTimeLucky

Good point about the state recognising an illegal union in the case of incest.

But just because a relationship is legal does not mean that the state must accept its conversion into a marriage relationship.
Take for example, the love of two 15 year olds - legal, but not marriageable.'

I would contend (in devil's advocate role) that the reason that the state is allowed (if it really is) to make incest illegal is that it undermines the traditional family unit [not because of genetic problems, because the state cannot prevent adults with inheritable genetic diseases from procreating or marrying].
In the case of incest the threat to the traditional, married family unit is a direct one, so the relationship itself must be made illegal. In the case of homosexuality the threat to the traditional, married family unit comes when they request to marry. Therefore the state can intervene at that point to make gay marriage illegal.

So my questions would be:
Q1. Is the state allowed to rule activities illegal that undermine the traditional, married family unit as it understands it?
Q2. If yes, then could homosexuality not be considered a threat to the unique importance of the traditional, married family unit?
Q3. If no, then on what basis is the state allowed to rule incest illegal?


*devil's advocate*

EDIT:> Actually, I don't think much of Q2. It seems pretty obvious to me that allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't undermine the institution of marriage, in fact it may strengthen it by allowing it bind more loving couples and gain importance through prevalence. But if anyone thinks that homosexual marriage would undermine the tradional, married family unit then please feel free to join in on this one.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

manalone

Fair enough. I agree that the logical reversal of my point is only partially correct.

Very well put. I think that makes sense.

Hmm... yes. On the basis that the majority wills it, and within the constraints of fundamental rights. But it's not a restricted field. The state should act to control acts of which are repugnant to the people, within the constraints of natural law.

For the same reason murder, theft, etc... are all regulated by the state.

Potentially, but is it really? Does forcing people to have illicit homosexual affairs which result in massive scandal and the breakup of marriages result in a positive effect?

In any case. I contend that this point relates to the legality of homosexuality. not the recognition of marriage.

If, on the other hand, we are asking if homosexual marriage is a threat to the position of heterosexual marriage; on the basis of a legal homosexual practice, I see no argument for it.

/me leaves that for someone else.

I know it seems sophistry, but I still want to try and separate marriage rights and the legality of the practice itself.

Rhetorical Aside: Why is it that you can never talk about homosexual rights without the whole thing turning to animals and kids?

EDIT: "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." - Winston Churchill.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

The_Dude

it doesnt matter if the majority wills it or not.

i've said this before, the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect minority views/rights from sudden majority's.

the right to marry whoever you want (recognized by state) is a basic right in my mind, and does not require majority will.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

manalone

I disagree. And in any case, you should note that this has already been covered. I adopted the humanist principle of Natural Law and fundamental rights as a more general (and international) expression of the statement of rights that guards each individual.

But you have to define marry and, if you see a fundamental right to marry, does that include animals? family? children?

if not, why not?

~feels like 4th all of a sudden~

And, incidentally, on the basis that the constitution is a living and alterable document, the majority matters a very great deal.

Instances of major alteration in the US:
1) Universal Sufferage

2) Slavery

and more.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

spectre

I strongly disagree with this. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect everyone, regardless of being in the minority or majority. My interpretation of it is that everyone is equal and no one is protected more than anyone else, regardless of being in the minority or majority. Equal.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

gibber71

Do people care if their neighour comes home ever day and get's shitfaced in the privacy of his or her home? Nope, as long as it doesn't directly affect them.

Do people care if in the neighourhood one over,everyone rips up their lawns and grows potatoes? Nope,as long as it's not in their neighourhood.

Do people care when they see a high speed LA police chase end in a crash? Nope,as long as they aren't involved.

So why do people care so much about other people's lifestyles? Because some archaic book called the bible says it's wrong. Really now,isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Two consenting gay people want to live their lives together peacefully and the bible calls it a sin,yet thousands of priests fuck little boys up the ass and from the Vatican on down it is covered up and everyone turns a blind eye.What hypocrisy in the name of God.

If you are distressed and are in a life and death predicament in which CPR can save your life,are you going to refuse help because the only person that can save you is gay? If you do,you deserve to die.

Are you going to turn down a job that will double your salary because your boss is gay? Hmmm,..now that would be putting your money where your mouth is.

Will you disown your father,mother,brother,sister,son or daughter if they come to you and tell you they are gay? Will their entire being just change in an instant? Will you be riddled with guilt since you have failed to make them understand your singular belief?

Life is for living,not judging.

I accept and respect everyones opinion on this board,but for the exception of a few,I am disappointed.

4thTimeLucky

Come on team, lets keep those pencils sharp.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Halx

I think Gallagher said it best. In so many words, he said that if you want to be progressive, you can't listen to what people say.

Now that we're in the 21st century, we cant heed the petty fears of people who got their education before this boom in sexuality. We have to progress and move on to the next issue.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

4thTimeLucky

Sadly it is often the case that the "next issue" (e.g. deliquent kids with irresponsible parents) is the result of the boom in sexuality and freedom of which you speak.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

manalone

More importantly, the thing is that every social measure is not to be railed against. We need to regulate our behaviour.

To paraphrase 4th, yesterday's "petty fear" may be tomorrow's grand crisis.

Asbestos or tobacco anyone?

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

The_Dude

look @ those 2 movements.

a minority group had to start a movement for the change in the status quo. this is the same situtation here, we're talking about equal rights for same sex-marriages and this is started by a minority group (mainly gays and liberals n libertarians etc...)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Halx

Guys, I thought we were a civilized society. Obviously I have a lot more faith in humanity than you guys.

What the heck kind of crisis could come out of gay marriages that isn't allready apparent in today's society?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Phaenx

They can get married for all I care. Go for it, let the state tax them like the rest of us. I don't like the concept of homosexuality, but they are going to be gay whether I like it or not. The one thing I don't want to happen is for them to adopt and raise children, that's the extent of my objection basically.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

The_Dude

even if a kid wants to be raised by same-sex parents?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Phaenx

Are you going to listen to what a kid wants? You're supposed to be raising them, not the other way around, they aren't capable of doing what's best for themselves.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

The_Dude

well, the other alternative is going to be nobody raising them, just switchin foster homes every 3 months.

i for one would GLADLY take same-sex parents!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Phaenx

Not quite, they can live with nuns, or some other government funded facility. Plenty of order in those places, they get shelter, food, and discipline in a fairly decent environment.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

manalone

Perhaps, or you could interpret the words "Civilsed Society" to include social and ethical rules and regulations.

That's my contention.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

manalone

Strictly speaking that is untrue. Women are a majority.

In either case, the point is that the majority had to agree to alter the document. They were offered the basic natural protections,
and the majority voted for change.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Halx

I'm going to add that it's a statistical fact: Children raised by gay parents have the same chances of ending up gay as those raised by straight parents.

Now, who doesn't believe that all men are created equal? The hypocracy of this whole debate is astounding. We are all equal and should be given equal rights.

Shit, gays should love me by now.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

The_Dude

i agree w/ halx. i dont think you can be gay if you're raised by gay parents.


i dont think i'm straight just cuz my parents are straight.


as for "Not quite, they can live with nuns, or some other government funded facility. Plenty of order in those places, they get shelter, food, and discipline in a fairly decent environment."

come on dude, not many kids wanna live w/ nuns. that must be the most boringest life ever.

just to compare, nuns dont have sex. does that mean the kids are going to be virgins for the rest of their lives?

and as for govt funded places, you mean a jail?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

suviko

At this point, I stopped reaing this post.

Why?

Cos his is not only USA forum or issue!

Also the christians don't have a monopoly on either of those. After accepting these two facts, discussion might become more fruitfull.

smarm

Agreed to both... I posted based on my frame of reference, US and majority christian area. I realize that this is not just a christian or US issue, I, unfortunately, just have more information about those particular areas. Given that, I don't think the opinons in my post would change, but I should probably have worded it differently.