PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
whatcha mean? i'm christian, i've even been baptized....twice :-D
International Atheists declare church/state principles
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
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.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
I tried - however, you were out playing with the boys...
not my fault you decide to only be in for a day
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Government Intrusion
Since the power to contract is absolute in this country where we, the people, are sovereign, it therefore follows that there is no business of the government in marriage arrangements. Unfortunately, the camel's nose is in the tent.
I, personally, am conservative to such an extent that I am only comfortable in a relationship complete with a religious ceremony and the 'lines' put away in a box in the closet. But my head sees no reason why the government has to be involved. Simply jumping over the broom should be enough.
Government, get out of my life!!
KS
Since the power to contract is absolute in this country where we, the people, are sovereign, it therefore follows that there is no business of the government in marriage arrangements. Unfortunately, the camel's nose is in the tent.
I, personally, am conservative to such an extent that I am only comfortable in a relationship complete with a religious ceremony and the 'lines' put away in a box in the closet. But my head sees no reason why the government has to be involved. Simply jumping over the broom should be enough.
Government, get out of my life!!
KS
I just see no reason to waste time articulating a position that will simply be parsed, misrepresented and ignored by people like you.
If you exhibited an interest in honest discussion and in actually objectively "exploring" ideas that are clearly unfamiliar to you, I would be more then happy to take the time to help you understand those views.
The article does give an indication as to why the government has a place in the marriage business:
It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
...The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
...states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
...The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
...states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.
The fact that you don't grasp what the article is saying and how it answers your "question" simply demonstrates your ignorance of the viewpoint (and, more importantly, the rationale behind the viewpoint) that opposes gay marriage.
The fact that you simply gloss over that lack of understanding to jump right into trying to dismiss that point of view shows that you have no interest in understanding that point of view. That fact demonstrate that you are not approaching this discussion with any degree of intellectual honesty and are not interested in any honest, productive discussion; only in propagandizing and self expression.
Oh, and when I talk about self expression it is for a very specific purpose which, again, you don't seem to grasp when you mock it by saying, "self-expression - bad, bad, bad". I am drawing a distinction between self-expression and an honest search for the truth (which is the heart of critical thought and of intellectual integrity). Unfortunately, you have never been interested in the truth.
That is why the subtleties and nuances of the views I am espouse on most things here are lost on you. Not because you are not intellectually capable of grasping them, but because you are utterly uninterested in them outside of distorting and delegeitimize them.
Stay classy.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This paragraph demonstrates several things - lack of logic, massive straw man arguments, appeals to emotion, and myopic thinking. Nothing in your attempt to tie your infantile examples to conservatism even approaches accurate truth.
Ted Kennedy at the Bork hearings thinks your post is over the line.
The ultimate in conservatism is that the Bill of Rights is enforced thoroughly and completely. You can't speak the truth when you don't have a clue. But hey, I have to correct the falsehoods that you spew so frequently here.
And shag - if you manage to actually read a rebuttal that isn't just posting yet another article, as is your want, you might notice that I have started to do just that - rebut that article.
First - lets go with 'people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community'.
I addressed that - people decided that the laws that didn't allow races to intermarry were just fine - guess what - they weren't. Even though those laws were voted in doesn't make them a 'just' moral rule. They weren't 'just' or do you think they were shag - lets start there. Let's answer that question.
The fact that you simply gloss over that lack of understanding to jump right into trying to dismiss that point of view shows that you have no interest in understanding that point of view. That fact demonstrate that you are not approaching this discussion with any degree of intellectual integrity and are not interested in any honest discussion.
Stay classy.
Actually shag, the fact that you are so dismissive of a real reply, really reflects on the level of 'classiness' that you impart to almost any discussion. You don't take the time to see that I have started to take on some biased article that can be refuted. Actually fairly easily when it comes to the fact that people pass laws all the time that seem 'morally correct' but when it comes right down to it - it is just oppression of the minority by the majority. I have given a very viable comparison - the miscegenation laws of our past, and shown why, although at the time they seemed very 'moral' and the majority of the people wanted them, they were wrong.
I obviously understand the oppositions POV - I have been able to draw on history, pull out similar law and compare it to current laws being passed.
I can actually give this historical perspective, something you seem to be lacking shag.
I can also look at this problem without the blinders of conservatism. No change, no matter what. Conservatives of the early 1900s thought that laws that didn't allow interracial were good - gave biblical references to support their stands. They wanted to 'conserve' current law, actually what could be considered 'ancient' law if you go by their reading of the biblical references regarding interracial marriage.
Your insistence that I don't grasp a concept, or that I don't understand it, or that I am glossing over it (when in fact I have started to tear it apart), is rather rude shag.
I am approaching this with integrity - I have actually taken the time to write responses, use historical content, and address specific issues.
I am discussing - meanwhile I believe you are 'spouting', dependent on conservative blogs to do your thinking, and unable to respond to my replies because they don't fall within your blogs 'standard talking points'.
If you want to claim that is a lack of 'class' on my part - please do - I will gladly relinquish any claim to 'class' if it falls within some bizarre right wing conservative definition that requires blind allegiance and goosestepping mentality.
How odd that it took the ultimate in classic liberalism to give us that Bill of Rights. The conservatives were on the side of the Brits Foss... Left to the conservatives we would still be feeding the coffers of the Queen.
Everything I said is correct when tying conservatives to this question - conserve, at all costs, tradition, status quo, the way it was. You might want to review the definition of conservative foss -
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bsflag:
I'm a conservative and I do not hold that view. You're simply wrong, fox. And you KNOW that what you're saying is wrong - which makes you, yet again, a liar.
We know you like to redefine terms to suit your red herrings. Nice try.
How odd that classic liberalism in no way resembles the thoughts and beliefs of you and your socialist fellow travelers.
For example, if the Democrats had had their way, the Civil Rights act would never have passed.
KS - the contract part is where the 'business' part lies - and where government does have a part. Mostly it is at the end, or when the contract is dissolved that the government comes into play. Division of assets, rights of custody those sort of messy battles. And during the contract, allowing partners power of attorney, the right to pensions, to inherited assets, things like that.
The rest - yes, marriage is a vital part of many American's lives - it is intertwined with church and family. The government should be kept far away from that part, as it should with almost all family/church matters.