No, the definition and tradition existed long before me.
I'm not seeking to change or redefine anything.
International Atheists declare church/state principles
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
No, the definition and tradition existed long before me.
I'm not seeking to change or redefine anything.
And when you frame the argument like that, you'll find broad approval for one of two things. Either:
1- establishing a legal organization that enables to adults to engage in a contract with similar legal obligations and privileges as "marriage." It doesn't even need to be a consummated relationship for this.
2- the federal government getting out of the marriage all together.
Why is it necessary or proper to redefine an institution?
There isn't. And expanding and redefining traditional institutions rarely serve to strengthen them, especially when it's such a radical change.
No one is arguing that homosexuals should be denied civil rights. No one is arguing that they shouldn't have the right to associate with anyone they want. I don't think anyone is arguing that the federal government should pass sodomy laws to prosecute and harass homosexual men.
This is simply about whether one social and legal institution should be radically redefined. And, from my personal associations and from what I've read, most homosexuals DO NOT want to redefine marriage, merely the legal protections that the marriage contract provides and, usually, a public way of demonstrating their commitment.
The effort to define marriage is a political wedge issue used by radical leftists who have an agenda outside of the reasonable one I just presented.
You mean the narrow view that represents about three quarters of the population- that "narrow tradition."
Or the Christian tradition that represents over a third of the world population?
And are the Muslims more tolerant of homosexual marriage?
Because that would be nearly another third of the world population.
If you view marriage as little more than a tax and contract issue, then you should have no problem or objection to simply creating the proper tax and contract construct that accommodates non-traditional relationships. And for that matter, the relationships don't even need to be sexual.
There is no benefit served by redefining a union that has historic and traditional spiritual and religious associations. To do so is to deliberately seek to engage in divisive and needlessly confrontational behavior. As stated repeatedly, there is broad, overwhelming support, for legal protections and contracts for non-traditional couples.
Do you realize how truly ignorant you are in your myopic viewpoint?
Do you even realize how childish and foolish you come across?
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
whatcha mean? i'm christian, i've even been baptized....twice :-D
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nobody's ever made that argument here in this forum. You're grasping at straws, and stupidly.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Holiday+lots of alcohol.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah - so it's about money. Thanks for admitting it. Gays want special group rights apart from everybody else. They want to be compensated for living with someone of the same sex. Currently, college roommates and same sex siblings don't get those kinds of privileges - why should they be denied them?
Do you even know WHY insurance companies give marriage discounts?
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
^^^ trivial
The only thing that makes sense - get all levels of government out of the marriage business- civil unions on the 'legal' front, and marriage on the 'religious' front.
Not so much. If you understand the purpose of government and the social causation of laws, getting government "at all levels" out of the marriage business is absurd and suggests a myopic focus on ideology.*
*I am referring to ideology in the technical sense, BTW
I do understand government and the 'social causation of law' and there is no reason for the government to be in the marriage business. Leave it to the Church. Let the Government do what it does best - create law... Let the Church do what it does best - create sacrament.
The government could then do the 'secular' thing - divorce, custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc. The civil union.
The let the church do the religious thing - they could decide which marriages to recognize. Many churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jews wouldn't recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. And those churches that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Separate government (civil law) and church (sacrament).
However, the Bible doesn't talk directly about the sacrament of marriage - so, who knows where that might go...
Why should the government be in the business of marriage shag... why should it go beyond civil unions?
So, you are claiming that the government has no place in protecting traditional social institutions that have shown themselves necessary for a civil society? Even when the majority of a society says otherwise?
Why is anything beyond a civil union needed for a 'civil society'. I think government needs to protect the legal issues that happen because of a union - but beyond that - nope. Why should government get into anything beyond that? What is the purpose of allowing the government into our 'married' lives beyond the legal issues of a union?
This misrepresents the issue.
The government, in this instance would be used to protect the institution of marriage from being corrupted toward political ends by a radical minority.
There is a profound philosophical difference here and it would behoove you to "explore" as you say and understand specifically what that difference is, where (in the rationale) it is and why it is.
I would recommend starting by going back and reading post #47.
I have - and you haven't answered my question, neither has anything in this thread -
Why should the government protect something it has no interest in - 'marriage'? It has a stake in 'civil union', but nothing in 'marriage'.
And does society have a stake in anything beyond 'civil union'? It shouldn't. Why should society need to approve of a church based event - freedom of religion. Why should the government align itself with a religious tract?
No marriage - no 'corruption by a radical minority'. Make it for what it really is under the law - a contract.This way the law neither establishes a religious definition, nor does it establish a sacrilegious definition. It is law - plain and simple.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
you gonna visit me foxy?
That is an assumption that is not shared by all sides in this debate. To ignore that difference is to attempt re-frame the issue favorable to your own point of view.
I have already explained why government would have an interest in protecting the institution of marriage. If you are going to simply ignore that notion, then there is no point in discussing anything further. If you are not interested in attempting to understand and accept that notion (if only for the sake of argument) then you are not interested in an honest and productive discussion.
Unfortunately, I have never known you to be genuinely interested in opposing/unfamiliar views on this forum, only in self-expression...
Is government all that is necessary for a civilized society?
Many people, even on the left, would disagree with that notion. The Framers certainly would have...
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion
-John Adams
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness
-George Washington in his Farewell Address
"Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
-John Adams
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wasn't a reaction at all. You appeared to imply that this 'arguement' is made in this forum - and you were implying that Cal was making this argument. If you weren't referring to a post in this forum, then to what were you referring? - i.e. where did you hear this 'arguement?'
So shag –
In post 47 you posted some article – I guess this article marches hand in hand with your thoughts – better post an article than articulate your own thoughts – right? Gosh - self-expression - bad, bad, bad...
So let’s address that little gem first.
That article is about the court striking down a law ‘of the people’. It doesn’t say anything regarding my question – why should government be in the marriage business in the first place. It addresses the notion that everyone has the right to marry – someone of the opposite sex. Similar to looking at this as in ‘days of old’ where someone has the right to marry – someone of their own race. That certainly is wrong – just as the gender question is also wrong if you are looking for constitutional backing.
This is really a ‘conservative’ question. Never change. Tradition is always right. People and societies don’t change course, don’t ever alter. It is the ultimate in conservatism. Stick your head in the sand and hope that ‘tradition’ will rule the day. If tradition ruled the day we wouldn’t have gotten beyond you can’t marry outside your race (do you want to see the myriad of laws that had that little clause in it in the past shag – they are called miscegenation laws –7 of the original 13 states also had them – before 1950 - 30 out of 48 states had them, does that make it right?). If tradition ruled you would have been bartering for your wife with goats and shekels. If tradition ruled you would have left her at home, while you visited your mistress and there wouldn’t have ever been a cry of “adultery” (however if your wife had left the marriage bed for someone else – she would have been stoned).
Ah - tradition, ah - conservatism. Face it Shag – marriage needs to be upheld by the church – you haven’t said one thing that states why the state should be in the marriage business. It is about law and only law – so there should only be state sanctioned civil unions. Beyond that you are stepping on civil rights and civil liberties. Let the church do that – it has for centuries, it will continue to for centuries to come.
Nope - but it is the law for the civilized society, it is not the religion of a civilized society.
In post 47 you posted some article – I guess this article marches hand in hand with your thoughts – better post an article than articulate your own thoughts – right? Gosh - self-expression - bad, bad, bad...
So let’s address that little gem first.
That article is about the court striking down a law ‘of the people’. It doesn’t say anything regarding my question – why should government be in the marriage business in the first place. It addresses the notion that everyone has the right to marry – someone of the opposite sex. Similar to looking at this as in ‘days of old’ where someone has the right to marry – someone of their own race. That certainly is wrong – just as the gender question is also wrong if you are looking for constitutional backing.
This is really a ‘conservative’ question. Never change. Tradition is always right. People and societies don’t change course, don’t ever alter. It is the ultimate in conservatism. Stick your head in the sand and hope that ‘tradition’ will rule the day. If tradition ruled the day we wouldn’t have gotten beyond you can’t marry outside your race (do you want to see the myriad of laws that had that little clause in it in the past shag – they are called miscegenation laws –7 of the original 13 states also had them – before 1950 - 30 out of 48 states had them, does that make it right?). If tradition ruled you would have been bartering for your wife with goats and shekels. If tradition ruled you would have left her at home, while you visited your mistress and there wouldn’t have ever been a cry of “adultery” (however if your wife had left the marriage bed for someone else – she would have been stoned).
Ah - tradition, ah - conservatism. Face it Shag – marriage needs to be upheld by the church – you haven’t said one thing that states why the state should be in the marriage business. It is about law and only law – so there should only be state sanctioned civil unions. Beyond that you are stepping on civil rights and civil liberties. Let the church do that – it has for centuries, it will continue to for centuries to come.
Nope - but it is the law for the civilized society, it is not the religion of a civilized society.