| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2008 02:16:14 PM · #1551 |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:16:46 PM · #1552 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I empathize with those who regard gay marriage as a right. |
You're still doing it. The right would be marriage. The restriction is discrimination unrelated to the right itself. |
Reads to me that your argument is with those in the gay community who continue to use the term "gay rights". Including marriage between persons of the same sex. |
Same as the people who keep calling it gun rights. |
I think we are getting there. Please do not be shocked if we find ourselves in agreement on some particular. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:19:02 PM · #1553 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[Oh, and the notion that ownership of manmade objects designed to kill things would be a divine right is funny. Ironic, insane, but funny. |
Kind of like swords. |
Yep, same deal. Thou shalt not kill, yet ye shall have the inherent right to invent and carry tools for that purpose. |
Thou shalt not murder. Killing is pretty much OK. |
Woo... now let's interpret and redefine the ten commandments. Nice. If killing is pretty much OK, then your previous post about the rights of the unborn is moot... unless killing IS murder, in which case your last post is bogus. Congrats- you've painted yourself into a corner.
Originally posted by Flash:
But for those whom the commandents of GOD don't apply anyway as there is no GOD to issue commandments, from whence does natural rights come? |
Common sense and human decency... something you seem to imply cannot exist outside of religious belief, yet somehow does regardless of culture, language or literacy.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:29:37 PM · #1554 |
Originally posted by Flash:
OK. Then those in the gay community and their advocates should stop using the term gay "rights". Perhaps they should use gay benefits. |
Ah, but you run into a problem. While Marriage is not a right, civil rights are. And gay rights are the idea that people who happen to be gay should have the same civil rights as every other group of people - i.e. the right to not be discriminated against. So, marriage is not a right. BUT, the idea that a gay person can't marry whom they want is a civil rights issue because the practice of prohibiting one group of people from entering a contract is a discriminatory practice and infringes on their civil rights.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:39:23 PM · #1555 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Thou shalt not murder. Killing is pretty much OK. |
Woo... now let's interpret and redefine the ten commandments. Nice. [/quote]
It surprises me that you of all the posters here, question the translation into the word murder. Kill is not an equal word by definition - even though some religious denominations choose to equate the two and use the word kill instead of the more correct murder.
Further, I have no clue about your point of my "rights of the unborn" post. It has nothing to do with this. That point was merely an example of a "rights" claim by some that is denied by others - some of the same who are outraged that their rights are denied. Nothing more. There are other rights issues to use as an example - I just tried to avoid the "gun issue" that time as I'm certain some here are ready to move back to the post's topic.
Regardless - to those who celebrate Thanksgiving (whether gay or straight, coupled or single, religious or secular) Enjoy your Thursday. Give Thanks for wahtever you deem appropriate to whomever you deem deserving. I will be thanking my Lord for his bountiful of blessings - my wife, my string of setter rescues (nearly 30 years worth), and my health. I hope and pray that the new President can move us forward and into a brighter time.
As Arnold says "I'll be back". |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:39:25 PM · #1556 |
The 2nd Amendment reappears as  Dahkota shoots holes in the marriage "rights" argument... |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 02:53:20 PM · #1557 |
| Hey. I just found Gold Jesus. I'm done for the day. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 03:01:03 PM · #1558 |
//www.goldjesus.com/
I guess the second commandment passed them right by |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 03:17:41 PM · #1559 |
| Sweet Jesus! (Literally.) |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 03:20:41 PM · #1560 |
The "right" we are dealing here is called "freedom", not "marriage". It's about our vaunted "inalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as we break no laws, we can do whatever we want.
In the past, homosexuals were denied the right to be themselves, i.e. to pursue their particular flavor of "happiness". It is now the law of the land, in the USA, that it is not legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; anti-gay laws are unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Marriage, in this sense, is not a right; it's a case of creating a contractual relationship between two people. There are basically 2 forms the contract can take; there's the legally-binding contract entered into under the aegis of the state, and there's the moral contract some (but not all) couples enter into with their God, under the aegis of a religious organization.
The so-called (but mislabeled) "right to marriage" we are tackling in this thread is, as others have pointed out, a legal issue, a discrimination issue. It is illegal in the USA to make certain contracts available to people or not based on their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation ΓΆ€” and that's where marriage is at. It's that simple. The state CANNOT be in the marriage-contract business if it is going to deny this contractual right to some of its citizens based on sexual orientation (or, for that matter, based on race, which used to be the case until the law was overturned).
There's NO way that a legal ban against gay marriage is going to be able to stand much longer, unless the Constitution is amended to make discrimination based on sexual orientation legal; and gawd help us all if THAT ever happens...
All IMO of course.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 03:45:30 PM · #1561 |
Yea. what he said... only so much more eloquently than I...
whoops - typo
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 15:49:52. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 04:02:16 PM · #1562 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "right" we are dealing here is called "freedom", not "marriage". It's about our vaunted "inalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as we break no laws, we can do whatever we want. |
...Hehehe, been a while since you were married huh Robert? Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness reside almost exclusively in the domain of the single... and "we can do whatever we want"... Yep, that works for me... reminds me of the "Man Song".
Thanks for the chuckle my friend, I really needed that... and oh, sorry if I took your comments out of context. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 04:52:49 PM · #1563 |
I would like to apologize. Again. The nature of the opposition to same-sex marriage is belief. I may have shot myself in the foot bewailing the inadequacies of the moral axes survey, because at the very least it signaled attitudes to authority; I think it is a safe guess that certain biblical interpretations, accepted as authorial by some, are responsible for this belief. We could argue the integrity of such interpretations, and/or we could question our own attitudes towards the authorial nature of these claims. I am inclined towards the latter (although I enjoyed Louis' suggestion that I might be a bible thumper and thumped about the house for days).
I think there is a genuine unease in those who believe that same-sex relationships are wrong, for if such are NOT wrong, what does that say about ALL they have been taught, about the authority of their teachings? - This kind of thing happens to everyone: we all have our little belief structures, in manners small (how to chop an onion) and great, and something happens to shake them loose - and there is that moment of great uncertainty, the hollow of doubt, before things play themselves out and we are either liberated from bonds or reaffirmed for a time.
It is a wonderful thing that is happening, whatever the arguments. Gays and lesbians are showing their hearts as well as their wounds. The world shakes.
As an aside, dahkota's contributions here and in the other rant (the founding fathers) have been wonderfully acute. I highly recommend her post on Thomas Jefferson in the latter for a sense of perspective on the framing of the constitution vis a vis church and state, and Thomas' own take on Jesus. (Her husband may be a gentleman but she is a scholar. - We also go back to the 1600's - isn't that when Creation began?, own our own property and once had old army coats).
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 16:54:16. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 04:57:31 PM · #1564 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and oh, sorry if I took your comments out of context. :O)
Ray |
Well, maybe just a little :-) Anyway, I always did like the sense of structure marriage provides, and the sense that you're not dealing with things alone anymore. I tend to look at marriage as a sort of microcosm of society; people band together for a common good. I know that's idealistic in this day and age, but after all isn't that what we're looking for? A social trade-off where certain "freedoms" are limited for the good of the larger relationship? As long as a marriage maintains a reasonable semblance of democracy between its partners, it's all good :-)
Now, in YOUR case, it may be that democracy has failed and you are suffering under an autocratic regime? I donno, you tell me :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:07:06 PM · #1565 |
Originally posted by tnun:
We could argue the integrity of such interpretations, and/or we could question our own attitudes towards the authorial nature of these claims. I am inclined towards the latter (although I enjoyed Louis' suggestion that I might be a bible thumper and thumped about the house for days). |
To be as accurate as possible, I feel it necessary to point out that I felt your apparent suspicion of academia made you bedfellows with the fundamentalists, not that I thought you yourself were fundamentalist Christian. I know no such thing. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:23:56 PM · #1566 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I think there is a genuine unease in those who believe that same-sex relationships are wrong, for if such are NOT wrong, what does that say about ALL they have been taught, about the authority of their teachings? - This kind of thing happens to everyone: we all have our little belief structures, in manners small (how to chop an onion) and great, and something happens to shake them loose - and there is that moment of great uncertainty, the hollow of doubt, before things play themselves out and we are either liberated from bonds or reaffirmed for a time. |
Yes, but why does the learning curve have to be at someone else's expense, in some cases, that of their lives?
How many blacks were lynched, gays tortured and killed, women stoned.....
When a belief structure tramples other human beings, it's wrong.
It's a beautiful thing to learn and grow......fighting it is just counterproductive.
Originally posted by tnun:
As an aside, dahkota's contributions here and in the other rant (the founding fathers) have been wonderfully acute. I highly recommend her post on Thomas Jefferson in the latter for a sense of perspective on the framing of the constitution vis a vis church and state, and Thomas' own take on Jesus. (Her husband may be a gentleman but she is a scholar. - We also go back to the 1600's - isn't that when Creation began?, own our own property and once had old army coats). |
Courtenay seems to have the ability to make one take pause......and think.
She cool!......8>)
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 17:33:35.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:27:32 PM · #1567 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Natural rights versus legal rights. The right to self defense is claimed by some to be a natural right (aka a divine right or a right so inherent in ones being that it precludes even needing a legal right to make it so). That obviously does not stop those who disagree (like you) with claiming that legal rights are what matters. OK. So in the states gay marriage is illegal (in many jurisdictions). Does the illegality of it stop you from believeing it is so? No. So then where does this "right" of same sex marriage come from? Is it a natural right? Perhaps. |
Flash, stop trying to be deliberately obtuse.
No matter how many times you say it, or what kind of spin you put on it, you cannot equate your desire to own a gun in the same context as the basic violations of human rights perpetrated on the gay community.
It's both annoying and offensive.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:36:47 PM · #1568 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
Natural rights versus legal rights. The right to self defense is claimed by some to be a natural right (aka a divine right or a right so inherent in ones being that it precludes even needing a legal right to make it so). That obviously does not stop those who disagree (like you) with claiming that legal rights are what matters. OK. So in the states gay marriage is illegal (in many jurisdictions). Does the illegality of it stop you from believeing it is so? No. So then where does this "right" of same sex marriage come from? Is it a natural right? Perhaps. |
Flash, stop trying to be deliberately obtuse.
No matter how many times you say it, or what kind of spin you put on it, you cannot equate your desire to own a gun in the same context as the basic violations of human rights perpetrated on the gay community.
It's both annoying and offensive. |
Flash,
Jeb's getting a little personal here, but strip that away and he's still right. You are trying to equate apples with oranges. If the gun-control people were trying to say, for example, that we should have gun control laws for women but not for men, then you'd have a comparable issue.
Let me repeat it again: the issue is NOT whether there is, or is not, an inalienable right for any two people to get married; the issue is whether the state can legally bar a certain group of people from entering a civil contract based solely on their sexual preferences. It's NOT legal to refuse to grant a mortgage to an otherwise-qualified couple because they are black, unmarried, or gay ΓΆ€” so how can it be legal to deny them this civil contract that legitimizes their relationship? This is absolutely separate from any religious argument as to whether or not such relationships are immoral; that's an issue for the churches to deal with, and they can deny a church wedding to anyone who does not meet their criteria, and that will not change.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:49:42 PM · #1569 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, I always did like the sense of structure marriage provides, and the sense that you're not dealing with things alone anymore. I tend to look at marriage as a sort of microcosm of society; people band together for a common good. I know that's idealistic in this day and age, but after all isn't that what we're looking for? A social trade-off where certain "freedoms" are limited for the good of the larger relationship? As long as a marriage maintains a reasonable semblance of democracy between its partners, it's all good :-) |
My view on the relationship part is similar but I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. If you've spent the time to really know the person then you should be able to trust them to remain committed to the relationship and therefore you wouldn't need a document or a ring or the wrath of god to keep him or her in check. I've been with my spouse/girlfriend for 10 years now. The day I need something in writing is the day I stop trusting her.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 17:50:34. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 05:57:36 PM · #1570 |
| Ah, [user]louis[/user]. Possibly "suggestion" was ill chosen to describe the vision I received on reading your post and which I very much enjoyed; alas my hilarity deflates on being made bedfellow with fundamentalists. I am, in fact, suspicious neither of academia nor of fundamentalists, but merely questioning of the authority with which either speaks, of the weight we might assign to certain biblical interpretations or to certain academic studies. Perhaps "circumspect" would be a better word than suspicion. Quite likely I have been misreading you, and not expressed myself clearly enough. I am trying not to take up too much space here, and also trying to keep referencing the point of this thread. What is important to me is questioning: the goal of education is not primarily to obtain a body of knowledge, but to learn how to know something which includes knowing that you do not know something. And to help you find your own voice. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:06:16 PM · #1571 |
Originally posted by yanko:
My view on the relationship part is similar but I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. If you've spent the time to really know the person then you should be able to trust them to remain committed to the relationship and therefore you wouldn't need a document or a ring or the wrath of god to keep him or her in check. I've been with my spouse/girlfriend for 10 years now. The day I need something in writing is the day I stop trusting her. |
For me at least, the paper is solely for the benefits - joint insurance, better tax rates, and rights of survivoring spouses. My husband is a cop in a high-crime area; I would not be given any spousal benefits if he died on duty unless I married him secularly. And he has a better last name and great parking. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:13:16 PM · #1572 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
For me at least, the paper is solely for the benefits ...better tax rates |
In the interest of clarity, married couples often suffer worse tax rates. (see Marriage Penalty). |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:30:21 PM · #1573 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
And he has a better last name and great parking. |
You see I have the better last name too but I've had no luck convincing my gf of this. :( |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:43:35 PM · #1574 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
For me at least, the paper is solely for the benefits ...better tax rates |
In the interest of clarity, married couples often suffer worse tax rates. (see Marriage Penalty). |
I believe the marriage penalty has been largely eliminated for most couples unless you are very high earning couple.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 18:44:29. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 06:50:29 PM · #1575 |
Originally posted by tnun:
As an aside, dahkota's contributions here and in the other rant (the founding fathers) have been wonderfully acute. I highly recommend her post on Thomas Jefferson in the latter for a sense of perspective on the framing of the constitution vis a vis church and state, and Thomas' own take on Jesus. (Her husband may be a gentleman but she is a scholar. - We also go back to the 1600's - isn't that when Creation began?, own our own property and once had old army coats). |
thank you tnun (and jeb) for your kind words. I think I have an advantage though, in that I work with historians and history professors. And while I don't always agree with their assessments of historical events, it does make for eye opening conversation and a basis for further research, which is what I most enjoy. As a self-defined skeptic (part of my philosophy training), there is no way better to spend an afternoon than researching the truth behind 'he said/she said.' I can rarely take what people say (and quote) at face value...
To Achoo - I'm not hit by the marriage penalty. In fact, I would pay no taxes with my salary and deductions and the government would 'owe' me money back, if that were possible.
Here is information on Jefferson's views
Here is my favorite book, the one I try to live by.
Here is the book I find comforting in all cases.
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough.
and somehow, they all relate to the discussion of christianity, gay marriage, rights, and responsibilities.
|
|
