|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2004 : 09:17:17 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, you have yet to show any concrete examples of judicial activism. Certain of us here won't take it for granted, especially when it appears that the phrase "judicial activism" equates to "what Doomar doesn't like."quote:
...Today, the tables are turned, as they should be, against homosexual behavior. Acceptance of the same by society, will destroy morality in society.
Big words, so prove it.quote:
Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, will all be negatively impacted when perversion is lifted up equal to natural unions.
How so?quote:
How does one practice their religion with freedom of conscience when laws directly oppose that conscience?
Exactly. How can Rastafarians practice their religion when marijuana is illegal?quote:
All standard religions prohibit homosexuality, not just Christianity.
I see no mention in the Constitution that "standard" religions should be granted more freedom than "nonstandard" religions.quote:
Thus religion also supports natural law of man/woman union.
What "natural law?" Are you unaware of homosexual practices amongst animals?quote:
No, my fellow skeptics, you cannot call this a matter of civil rights when to give this right would be to take away other's rights.
The only rights I can see it stripping from anyone else is the right to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Is that a right which is granted by the Constitution?quote:
Such is not a true civil right. No, this matter has to do with giving special rights to a small group and that should never be part of a democracy.
Actually, giving special rights to even large groups shouldn't be part of a democracy, which is why prayer in school is unconstitutional. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 12:56:23 [Permalink]
|
Bushie's atitude on Constitutional amendments is as 'casual' as invading other nations. Believe he has voiced support for more such amendments, than any other President. "No big deal..."
Me thinks yer a bit harsh on yers truely, DW. Followed yer arguements and generally found agreement of intent. Still wished to register an opinion, however "ridiculous," that would bet is fairly common and present accross our land. Being one, who has lived though less tolerant times of polical correctness, such as the early fifties, were me witnessed the storming of the county jail, and hanging of a man accused of raping a fourteen year old girl,(in this case a white man). And IMO it was 'justice', were he the actual guilty perp. So think you would have to agree, what is 'polictical correct' can and does, make wide swings, even accross a single lifespan. While wishing no pentalties for same sex, commited couples, am not ready to accept such unions as 'identical' to the 'classical' marriage of a man and woman. So there it is, just or not, given the chance, will continue to draw a distinction each time, cuz IMO there is one, a real one. And that is simply, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman...
Fuzzy wuzzy  |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 14:32:46 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, NubiWan, for being harsh, but I am impatient. I'm waiting for someone to explain your apparent point-of-view to me, without resorting to appeals to tradition and/or popularity, neither of which is persuasive to me (since many traditions are no longer followed, and many popular ideas are simply wrong), or resorting to legal arguments which are incorrect.
What I'm looking for is why you think "marriage" should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and not, for example, as a union between two (or more) people who are committed to each other well beyond simple "friendship."
You see, in my opinion, two-month marriages cheapen the "institution" of marriage. As already mentioned, Britney Spears sullied the practice. Such people aren't committed to each other, and shouldn't have been allowed to get married in the first place (how one would legislate that, however, is beyond me).
And on the other hand, my wife and I consider ourselves to have been married for nearly three years before we actually got the license and had the ceremony. If two guys feel towards each other the way I feel towards my wife, they've entered into the same sort of "union" which my wife and I have, whether they call it a "marriage" or not, legal or not.
And yes, what is or is not "politically correct" changes all the time, and vigilante justice may have been PC back in the day, but it still wasn't justice, as the man's rights were violated without question. My opinions on gay marriage haven't changed a bit since I learned what homosexuality was, and that same-sex marriages were generally illegal. It's not right to deny people the ability to legally enter into such unions, no matter their sexes. Never has been right, and it never will be. My opinions on this matter, and many others, aren't based upon which way the fickle-minded PC crowd is drifting, they're instead based on what I think would be correct were I in such a situation.
And so, I get a little touchy when someone implies that an opinion I agree with is never based on anything more than crappy PC ideals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 14:52:52 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, there's so much bigotry and misinformation in your post.
Do you remember the civil rights movement? Do you remember how Christians used God and the Bible to justify the opression, discrimination (institutional, financial, personal, et al), and even murder of people because of the color of their skin? The KKK were Chrstians, right?
Whites had "special rights" that blacks didn't. And when blacks finally stood up and demanded equality and the same rights, do you remember the opposition they faced, including by Christians?
Do you see ANY parallels between gay rights struggles today and the civil rights movement of the 60s? Do you know that Matthew Sheppard, a young gay man, was beaten to death by somebody who thinks like you?
I am tired of bigotry.
|
|
|
|
Huluhae
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 17:42:15 [Permalink]
|
Hi! Wow, my very first post on these boards. I have given quite a bit of thought to this subject, but remember, all this is my opinion. (Even though I am right, and you know it!) 
Warning: This is very long.
I see nothing wrong with allowing homosexual men and women to profess their love for each other. Thousands of people have already gotten their licenses and married, that should tell everyone--especially Bush--that there are going to be thousands more out there who are just waiting for a chance.
Who is Bush, or anyone else, to deny the most basic right of happiness to an entire population of people just because he doesn't agree with their sexual orientation. Take the story of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, lesbian partners for 50 years, who were finally married in San Francisco. 50 years is a long time to be devoted to someone. It doesn't matter what they practice, they have an obvious love and commitment to each other and that should be praised by all.
I also think that most of the people who are against gay marriage are the ultra-religious Falwell types. Of course, as an aetheist, I think everyone who believes in some old bearded dude floating above their heads in the sky is ultra religious. My husband and I have talked about this subject at length, and we both think that people are against gay marriage because they don't want to offend dear old God by having him look over from his most recent massacre and gasping "Oh no, is that two pussies I see naked in bed together!?" and end up dying of a stress induced heart attack.
I also agree with the people who are smart enough to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. It's basically the same thing. We went from denying rights to people based on skin color, to denying rights based on who they have sex with. Like most of us even give an ugly pig's butt about our neighbors sex lives. I sure don't. I believe in one thing--it has to be consensual. But that's an entirely different topic and I don't want to get off on a tangent.
On a different thought, does anyone else think that Bush knows he doesn't stand much chance at re-election, and is doing this only to take peoples minds off the more important issues of war, joblessness, and investigation of the shady dealings that were 9-11-2001? After all, he's alienated literally thousands of potential voters, and in an election year at that. Yep, I'd say that Bush is quite aware he won't win against the democratic candidate, but he's determined to have as little attention focused on the real issues before the election takes place as possible.
Link!:
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/909/909_martin_lyon.asp
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2004 : 21:24:39 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I did miss the "Natural Law" bits in Doomar's earlier post:quote:
Natural law strongly supports marriage as only between man and woman. Natural law dates back to the beginning of civilization.
"Natural Law" is a philosophy, and not a true "law" in the sense of "the Law of Gravity." As was discussed in another thread, Natural Law strictly says that abstinance is morally repugnant. In other words, Natural Law tells us that "saving oneself for marriage" is wrong. Along the same lines, it tells us that men and women should start having sex as soon as they're fertile. As young teenagers, in other words. Even worse, Natural Law even tells us that, contrary to the "institution of marriage," men should be trying to have sex with as many women as possible (monogamous relationships being in the minority in nature).
In short, if we assume that "Natural Law" is correct (for the sake of argument), we would indeed have to consider homosexuality to be wrong, but we would also have to consider marriage itself to be wrong, along with the idea that 13 is too young an age to even consider having children, and the idea that fathers should care for their children. Yes, "deadbeat dads" out there can rejoice since Doomar's got the answer: legislation based upon "Natural Law."
And, although I seriously doubt your claim that Natural Law "dates back to the beginning of civilization," the age of an idea has little to do with whether or not that idea is correct. The concept of the Egyptian Gods has existed far longer than Christianity, for example. If age has anything to do with correctness, Amon-Ra is right, and Jesus is wrong.quote:
Homosexuality has always been considered a perversion and never a "natural" behavior.
Apparently, you haven't been exposed to many cultures outside your own. Your absolutist ideas ("always" and "never") are simply incorrect, as was already demonstrated when you wrote your post. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2004 : 09:10:23 [Permalink]
|
I thought that the 28th amendment was going to ban flag burning. Now there is an ammendmant that is screaming to be written.
Maybe we should write and ammendmant that would make illegal to be one of those people who don't actually sing the national anthem at ball games.
I think we should make an ammendmant that would make it illegal for really ugly people to get married. I mean, what they do in there own home is ok, but if they can get married I might have to see them walking around in the open slobbering all over each other... it gives me the whillies. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2004 : 10:15:30 [Permalink]
|
ROFL.
Yeah, furshur. Maybe we could make an amendment that prohibits fat women from wearing tank tops in public. I just can't handle seeing those flabby upper arms. It's okay if they show their fat AT HOME...but in PUBLIC....
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2004 : 17:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Welp, DW, every time me tries to set forth an argument, "tradition and/or popularity" always seems to rear its little head, as a major factor to it. Such was the case long before drawing me first breath, in as much as "marriage" was both popular and traditional accross the land between men and women commited to each other, and wishing to bring offsprings into the world, think so. Perhaps it is only my "comfort level," that prevents me from accepting same sex unions as a 'classical marriage.' Although think the thought of procreation and the resulting 'family,' growing from the marriage union, plays a large part in me own preferences. To me it seems, this convention of marriage being a union of a man and a woman, has served us, humanity, well, and really can't see a pressing need of changing it now. That is not the same as not seeing a legal failing towards those same sex unions, that are maintained with the same degree of comitment as clasical marriages, and beleive that the legal system owes it to them to correct it asap.
Think the country's sense of fairness at this moment, has a majority consensus in favor of correcting the situation for same sex couples, within our legal framework, thou perhaps slim. This is what me means by "political correctness," a general consensus of unwritten agreement. Didn't intend to suggest your position was based merely upon a notion of current PC. In complete agreement with your view of "two day" marriages, BTW. However not certain the nation is ready to bestow identical terms of marriage upon same sex unions, or perhaps it is only my own opinion, that am uncertain about. Not so sure the firmness of it's determination, could hold up over a long drawn out debate, either, of what makes a marriage, a "marriage." What of unions containing more than two people? Should "marriage" be expanded to include them as well? Why or why not? Is it the 'state' that determines, what constitutes a marriage, or is it the commitment of the parties concerned within such unions, that determines it in the first place?
Well thats me fuzzy PoV, anyways... |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2004 : 19:43:05 [Permalink]
|
And add to "tradition" and "popularity" the idea of procreation either having marriage as a prerequisite or being the ultimate goal of marriage as another one of those ideas of which I am not convinced. Counter-examples include the growing number of single parents in the world who are doing a fine job of raising their kids, and the fact that married parents are no guarantors of a good upbringing (and a bad marriage may lead to a lousy childhood for any offspring).
Human beings necessarily got along fine for many thousands of years before the concept of "marriage" even came into being. They had kids and did their best to raise them in a terribly uncertain environment, much more uncertain than one usually finds in today's U.S.A., where there are few predators crouching behind rocks, and medical care is often just a phone-call away.
No, the "traditional" marriage that most people think of now is a construct imposed by religions. Undoubtedly, there have been - and probably still are - cultures in which a union is primarily a social thing, a melding of two people or families, and perhaps the villiage religious leader asks the gods for a blessing. The major religions, in my opinion, have usurped the right to create marriages, to the point where the Catholic Church doesn't consider marriages performed by any other church to be "real" marriages.
A union between people needs to be disentangled from the clutches of the churches, just like every other form of governance needs to be disentangled from religion. After all, without people, neither churches nor marriages would exist at all. Marriages are about the people, not about God. Churches need to back the heck off marriage, along with those people who think that churches should be the only way people can get married (they'd eliminate civil marriages altogether). Both groups have a backwards idea of what marriage is about.
And sure, why not expand marriage to more than two people? As was discussed in chat last week, it would also make the tax forms a mess, but I don't see any built-in harm in multiple marriages, so long as all of the participants agree to be married to all the other participants (in other words, secret bigamy would still be outlawed, as would being a would-be "harem king"). And, as should be obvious, that sort of multiple marriage requires same-sex marriage to be legal.
It is, and should be, the commitment of the married people which is of prime importance. A marriage without it is a sham, as you agree. The government should recognize such commitment, and foster it because it leads to less strife amongst the citizenry, and thus a stronger social situation. If churches want to continue blessing marriages, that'd be fine with me, but to leave churches in charge (as above) is not in the best interest of the state or the people, and would drive civilization backwards a few hundred years, in at least one respect.
In short, the "traditional" view of marriage, I believe, does a great disservice to everyone involved. It misplaces the emphasis of what marriage really means, and is an attempt by religions for more control of the citizens.
And yes, I realize that my idealism is shining through in this post, and that there's no way in heck such reforms are going to come about overnight. Probably not even within my lifetime. But I still think that "freedom of marriage" is a good goal (especially with regard to taking such freedom completely away from religions). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 11:36:31 [Permalink]
|
I think gay marriage is wrong, but a new law or ammendment banning it flies in the face of what this country is founded on. Freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Doomar, you have yet to show any concrete examples of judicial activism. Certain of us here won't take it for granted, especially when it appears that the phrase "judicial activism" equates to "what Doomar doesn't like]
I think the latest ruling by the California Supreme Court qualifies. Catholic Charities, a faith based non profit charity, has to offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health plan. The court ruled that it is not a religious employer because they offer secular services without directly preaching christian values to people they serve. Many churches offer secular services to non christians without any strings attached. I think this violates the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 12:04:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I think gay marriage is wrong, but a new law or ammendment banning it flies in the face of what this country is founded on. Freedom.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Doomar, you have yet to show any concrete examples of judicial activism. Certain of us here won't take it for granted, especially when it appears that the phrase "judicial activism" equates to "what Doomar doesn't like]
I think the latest ruling by the California Supreme Court qualifies. Catholic Charities, a faith based non profit charity, has to offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health plan. The court ruled that it is not a religious employer because they offer secular services without directly preaching christian values to people they serve. Many churches offer secular services to non christians without any strings attached. I think this violates the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nope. It says that the part of their organization that is secular in nature must be held to the same standards as any other employer. It does not require the church to change their stance on the subject nor does it require the church to change it's preaching on the message. They employ people who are not of the same religion as they are as part of that secular, non-profit business. It does not prohibit any exercise of their religion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 14:27:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nope. It says that the part of their organization that is secular in nature must be held to the same standards as any other employer. It does not require the church to change their stance on the subject nor does it require the church to change it's preaching on the message. They employ people who are not of the same religion as they are as part of that secular, non-profit business. It does not prohibit any exercise of their religion.
Don't you think that the judges are defining what religion is? The court is telling this orginazation that they have to discriminate against non christians by only hiring and serving christians if they want to operate by thier beliefs or embrace a policy that they view as a sin. That is prohibiting free excercise of their religion. The employees know the health coverage plan when they are hired. They can work somewhere else if they want contraceptive coverage. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2004 : 14:29:14 [Permalink]
|
From CNN:quote:
But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.
In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.
More importantly:quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."
I believe that the ACLU knows the meanings within the Bill of Rights better than I. If they aren't screaming about how the ruling infringes on the charity's freedom of religion, it probably doesn't.
Perhaps even more telling is a bit from the L.A. Daily News:quote:
To comply with California law, many Catholic hospitals already offer coverage to employees that includes regular birth-control pills and the "morning-after pill," even though they are not happy about it.
And the Oklahoma Daily says,quote:
The California Women's Contraceptive Equity Act, passed by the state Legislature in response to concerns that women were being unfairly denied coverage for birth control, exempts strictly religious organizations, including the church itself. But the Supreme Court concluded that Catholic Charities is not entitled to the exemption because it serves a secular purpose, has no direct involvement in church activity, employs a majority of non-Catholics and is considered a non-profit public corporation under federal tax laws.
Overall, according to the Court, it appears that to take the religious exemption in the law, you need to actually be a religious organization, and not simply have the backing of a religious organization. This does not appear to be a good example of a court creating law, as the term "activist court" implies, but instead an example of a court interpreting the law created by the legislature, which is the court's job. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
