Our nation was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, which is far better than being ruled by men. We remove that from our laws, we dissolve the bedrock foundation those laws are promulgated upon. And that's the truth, whether or not you believe in HIM.
It was written generally, but in response to ideas bama had posted, thus the insertion. I am not making an argument in emotions, per se...but it should also be pointed out that when we are talking primates (and I am, as there have been studies of homosexuality within that community) the emotions actually are similar, since they are genetically so similar to us. Regardless, mine is an argument that "aberrations" exist in nature and separate from our uberhuman societal fabric, without messy human programming and emotional interference. A further extension of this argument is that homosexuality has existed and been documented throughout human history, despite the continual shifting of societal norms and acceptance within and accross world cultures. So I guess you are insulting me by invoking the Berkeley name? I am hurt. Beyond the insult those sentences don't really make sense to me. Studies in education (human sexuality is part of human behavior, you know...or is it the other way around?)? Contrived vs. reason? Maybe if I had already gone to Berkeley I would understand what you are talking about. Oh yeah, I am with JV, marriage is useless (and archaic) as a legal distinction.
Not defending baseless labeling here, but aren't you the person that likes to label Democrats (and, no, I am not a Democrat) with loaded terms such as "socialist" and "commie"?
I don't see how I could have Rimbaud and DaDakota agree with me at the same time. I must have taken a serious wrong turn somewhere.
And this changes things how? Nation founded on principles built upon the teachings of a God that can't be proven to exist. Start with an unproveable assertion and base everything on it and somehow that gives your beliefs credibility. Ha...
My point was how can you question the validity of the foundation? To believe in law and order, right and wrong, you must at least surrender the notion that our sense of right and wrong comes from somewhere. And Timing, it certainly isn't man. Man is intrinsically sinful. If left to our own devices....we would be the wild kingdom. Survival of the fittest would be our governing principle. By agreeing that our rule of law in this country, based on Judeo-Christian principles, is a good thing, you also admit that there is a higher power at work. Otherwise, what are we left with?
Actually, we accept laws not because of some higher power but because we (consciously or not) recognize that acceptance of those laws will give us more safety and properity (which of course leads to liberty). Right and wrong is determined by what maintains safety and prosperity. Basically, it's the whole social contract theory which has no origin in religion. In fact, it is very likely that religion developed as means of enforcing societal rules rather than as an origin of those rules. The ultimate goal should be laws that allow for the maximum security and prosperity. If anyone here can argue how homosexual marriage poses a threat to security or properity, I'm all ears. BTW, our laws are based as much upon Greek Philosophy as they are Judeo-Christian laws.
There was a time when it was considered abherrant for people of different races to have sex or get married in this country and it was deemed unnatural among other things. Thank God nowadays, it's ok for say a white person and an asian person to get married and have kids etc.
Humanity? Realilty? Now you're just up here preaching. This is your unsubstantiated belief and nothing more. Man is no more intrinsically sinful than he is intrinsically good so please stop with the Bible thumping already. Many civilizations have managed to survive and prosper quite nicely without knowledge of these Judeo-Christian principles.
Name one. I double-dog dare you. I guarantee there isn't one and no, I'm not preaching. To deny a moral foundation to found a civilization upon is to deny civilization itself.
and the greeks were flamers. Achebe, In legal terms, civil union is equivalent to marriage, right? Or am I missing something. JuanValdez, I can't help but say that dropping the defintion of marriage without replacing it with some defintion of a couple (or parents) is throwing out the baby with the bath water. You would be dropping the definition of a family, imo. My main point is to show padgett and others that the issue *is* about citizen/parental benefits and rights, no matter how much they want to say it is about something soley non-civil. I'm pretty sure I said the same thing as you, just trying to stay focused on that the government cannot be separated from the rules and regulations of couples (civil union, superclass Java SO. marriage, etc--what ever you want to call it), unless you want to severely weaken the rights of dual guardianship over a child...which is at the very heart of laws based on couples. Right now, as I know it, the govt just gives two biological parents that right, off the bat, and extend those rights to citizenship rules, tax benefits, custody, inheritance benefits, remarriage...etc, most of which are to support the stability of families. So, aside from biological parents, how do you gain dual guardianship over a child...<b>well, the govt has to recognize couples as a legal pair!</b> Now, if you propose not to address the importance for sterile parents, adopted parents, single parents with absent mates, or widowed parents, and (in the case of this thread) homosexuals from needing to (re)gain dual guardianship of children they raise, then you are exposing the child to trouble in the event of deaths. So follow me here: so since dual guardianship is well established and is a good thing, then you need a way to designate dual legal guardians. If you are allow that, then all the financial responsibility and benefits of such arrangement should become shared, too....since dual guardians (for all practical purposes) will be sharing the burden of raising the child. Now if you don't want two people to share the legal benefits/rights afforded them for sharing the burden of raising our youth, then imo, you are stripping some of the best rules and regulations on the books--the ones that help people raise kids, and protect kids from the disadvantage of having only one legal parent. so, you are back to essentially defining a couple, because only couples or really great friends (umm, couples) are going to make such a dual guardianship arrangement. And this is about setting up transfer of guardianship upon death....this is about the govt helping two people (at one time) raise a kid, and the kid having two people (at one time) who can speak for them....this is about status quo of many rules and regulations. anyhow, that is a long about way to squeeze in the heart of the issue that makes govt legally recognize a pair of people as a couple, and why it is a good thing for government to allow two people to legally share the govt benefits afforded them for the burden of raising our youth. If you propose striking marriage from govt, you must replace it with some definition of a couple, because the govt should recognize and support couples raising children. Dropping the definition of a couple (and the ability to change that definition throughout ones life) drops the definition of a family, and that is a bad thing, imso. <b>bottomline</b>: <b>You should be able to define your family to the government, under all circumstances and tragedies.</b>
sigh, no edit this sentence was written in the positive, " And this is about setting up transfer of guardianship upon death" it should have been negative, " And my point is *not* about setting up transfer of guardianship upon death"
So in other words, in answer to several of the posters who advocate an end to any government sanction of any sort of marriage, you believe that this government sanction is a positive rather than a negative? I would be inclined to agree.
Eternity. How can you make reservations for something that has already started? BTW, heaven is literally up your ass.
yes, I am in favor of the definition of "marriage," but I am also in favor of citizens having more freedom over how they define that. It is our definition...not the government's.
and as bama is a product of that exact combination of parents I would think he would be more understanding. really though bam, you claim to vote Libetarian but everything you post screams right wing Republican to me. Guess who said the following quote? "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or--or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area ... I think we ought to do everything we can to--to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."
I never said I wasn't tolerant of those relationships. I just don't want them included in the legal definition of marriage. Otherwise.....beside that minor little point, I think it is perfectly acceptable for corporations to voluntarily give benefits to those sort of couples. I think I do need to be internally consistent. Even though I think that all sodomy laws were a ridiculous govt. infringement on your bedroom, I supported the states rather than the Supreme Court changing the offending laws. If individual states such as Hawaii and Vermont want to recognize those unions, that's fine. But my approval ends when the tyranny of the minority forces people in more conservative states who do not approve of it to accept it via fiat. I will have to agree that a constitutional amendment either way is not the way to go. Even though I may agree with Bush on the issue, I'd prefer it be left to the individual states.
Do you, Jim, take the Bob as your lawfully wedded husband? I do. And do you, Bob, take the Jim as your lawfully wedded husband? I do. I now pronounce you husband and husband. You may kiss the groom.
I didn't know you considered those 3 things to be "fun" but whatever floats your boat man. yeah and..? marriage is a big part of that argument but not the only part. what's wrong with equality? how would me marrying another guy affect you in a negative way or in any way at all? Denmark has allowed gay marriage since 1989. Has all the doom and gloom you are predicting for us befallen them the past 14 years?
