Hey dgs49, Obama just called your bluff

[rubato]

Depriving people who eat pork of their civil rights makes more sense than doing so to homosexuals. If you actually read the bible, that is.



yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

Sin is wrong because it is an offense against God. The Bible is God's word on that. Homosexuality is a sin. Morality is defined by God, the ground of reason and the basic premise - not by beginning with a human premise. A rational argument for opposing homosexual marriage is built upon that.

BTW in case it is not clear; the issue is not that I wish to 'punish' or 'oppose' someone else's sin. It is my sin I'm concerned about. To acquiesce in a societal change that condones, promotes and approves of violating moral law is for me to sin.

The problem here, Meade, is that the morality prescribed by your particular religion is an inapprpriate basis for legislation in a secular (or even multi-denominational) society, especially one that constitutionally separates church and state. The value of any law, whether prohibitive or permissive, cannot be assessed by reference to religious doctrine or concepts of "sin." A law is properly tested by principles of consequentialism, i.e., whether it promotes (or does not harm) the stability and functions of the state while allowing for the maximum amount of personal liberty. Whether the conduct at issue is offensive to your personal moral sensibilites -- for whatever reason -- is wholly irrelevant. You simply may not prescribe the morality of other citizens through the power of the state except to the extent the conduct at issue is objectively harmful to the society as a whole. Until you can demonstrate some actual harm resulting from same-sex marriage, there is simply no rational reason for the state to prohbit it.

[Big RR]

I have to agree Sue. On another issue, I find capital punishment as morally reprehensible (and please let's not turn this into a capital punishment thread, I'm only using it as an example--if someone wants to discuss that issue let's start another thread), but I would not advocate outlawing it for that reason as I am aware that people have different opinions on the morality of that practice. Your "consequentionalism" analysis makes the most sense.

[dgs49]

Sue, as you very well know, this discussion has nothing to do with LEGAL prohibitions of sodomy, which are now obsolete in this country. Meade is addressing the question of whether sodomy is sinful - an offense against God.

And no one even takes a stab at a legal definition for "homosexual."

I'm not surprised.

[Scooter]

Because none of us is your remedial reading comprehension teacher. Try the Sylvan Method.

So Dave, not even one case supporting your contention that Full Faith and Credit obligates states to recognize marriages performed in other states? Not even one, really?

The way you were thumping your chest on this point, one would think you had used your imaginary law degree to actually argue one of those cases yourself.

[Sue U]

Sue, as you very well know, this discussion has nothing to do with LEGAL prohibitions of sodomy, which are now obsolete in this country. Meade is addressing the question of whether sodomy is sinful - an offense against God.

As quoted in my post above, Meade states that his opposition to same-sex marriage stems from a Biblical statement that homosexuality is sinful. If it is constitutionally impermissible for the secular state to prohibit same-sex "sodomy," why is it not similarly improper to prohibit same-sex marriage?

And no one even takes a stab at a legal definition for "homosexual."

Why is "a legal definition for 'homosexual'" necessary or even relevant to this discussion?

[Big RR]

Because if you can't dazzle them with brilliance...

[Lord Jim]

Why is "a legal definition for 'homosexual'" necessary or even relevant to this discussion?

I don't see why it would be, regardless of your position on this....

the issue is "same sex marriage"...

Presumably everyone knows what "same sex" means....

The question is whether a man should be able to marry another man, and whether a woman should be able to marry another woman...

I don't see how legal definitions of sexual orientation would enter into it...

[Scooter]

It's Dave's way of impugning the legitimacy of SSMs i.e. how do we know that people entering into them are really gay, so isn't there a risk that they are nothing but marriages of convenience. The answer is, of course, that it doesn't matter unless we are going to institute a litmus test for all marriages, including between opposite-sex couples, in order assess whether they are entering into marriage for the "right" reasons.

Otherwise, it's a way of claiming that attempting to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation is meaningless unless everyone can be neatly categorized into one sexual orientation or another. Which, again, is bogus, because discrimination is based on the perception of the perpetrator, regardless of the actual characteristics of the victim.

[Gob]

Can we get a legal definition of "man and a dog" marriage for Dave too?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sin is wrong because it is an offense against God. The Bible is God's word on that. Homosexuality is a sin. Morality is defined by God, the ground of reason and the basic premise - not by beginning with a human premise. A rational argument for opposing homosexual marriage is built upon that.

BTW in case it is not clear; the issue is not that I wish to 'punish' or 'oppose' someone else's sin. It is my sin I'm concerned about. To acquiesce in a societal change that condones, promotes and approves of violating moral law is for me to sin.

The problem here, Meade, is that the morality prescribed by your particular religion is an inapprpriate basis for legislation in a secular (or even multi-denominational) society, especially one that constitutionally separates church and state. The value of any law, whether prohibitive or permissive, cannot be assessed by reference to religious doctrine or concepts of "sin." A law is properly tested by principles of consequentialism, i.e., whether it promotes (or does not harm) the stability and functions of the state while allowing for the maximum amount of personal liberty. Whether the conduct at issue is offensive to your personal moral sensibilites -- for whatever reason -- is wholly irrelevant. You simply may not prescribe the morality of other citizens through the power of the state except to the extent the conduct at issue is objectively harmful to the society as a whole. Until you can demonstrate some actual harm resulting from same-sex marriage, there is simply no rational reason for the state to prohbit it.

That is your belief and opinion. My belief and opinion is that you are incorrect. The morality prescribed by God is entirely appropriate for any and all societies. But I say again, it's not about controlling someone else's morality - it's a question of conforming to my own. Actual harm arises from people condemning themselves to separation from God and encouraging others to do so as well. Therefore I must oppose whatever causes that to happen. That society can (and does) seet up secular arrangements is obvious. "Marriage" is not a secular state, no matter how society tries to appropriate and distort the meaning of language = "gay" being a classic example.

Meade

[BoSoxGal]

So Athiests should be denied the right to marry?

[Guinevere]

Meade, again I ask -- how do you reconcile the various main stream Christian denominations who ordain homosexual clergy, and who perform same-sex marriages?

[Grim Reaper]

"Marriage" is not a secular state, no matter how society tries to appropriate and distort the meaning of language = "gay" being a classic example.

Marriage, when it comes with a variety of benefits from the government, has to be secular, otherwise people are being denied access to benefits solely because of their sexual orientation.

[rubato]

"...


That is your belief and opinion. My belief and opinion is that you are incorrect. The morality prescribed by God is entirely appropriate for any and all societies. But I say again, it's not about controlling someone else's morality - it's a question of conforming to my own. Actual harm arises from people condemning themselves to separation from God and encouraging others to do so as well. Therefore I must oppose whatever causes that to happen. That society can (and does) seet up secular arrangements is obvious. "Marriage" is not a secular state, no matter how society tries to appropriate and distort the meaning of language = "gay" being a classic example.

Meade

Your opinion is that the prohibitions against being homosexual are stronger than they were and that the prohibitions against eating non-halal meats have disappeared.

Your opinion is that god created homosexuals so that you would have someone to hate and persecute.



yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

The best argument against same-sex marriage is that marriage laws have historically been based on a traditional family model, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. Traditional marriage laws and longstanding precedents serve the primary purpose of protecting the interests of the (non-working) wife and children upon the death or departure of the husband/father. To the extent that some states have rewritten their marriage laws to be gender and role-neutral, this argument may break down.

It is also the province of the State legislatures to make policy decisions with respect to social constructs, most notably, the nuclear family. If the legislature believes that the traditional man-woman marriage is a superior model for raising children, they are within their rights to codify that preference in the law, and conversely, to refuse to recognize, for example, same gender relationships, incestuous relationships, or multiple partner relationships - all of which exist in most societies. You can have those relationships if you want, but the State does not have to sanction them. All citizens are free to gather information and convince the legislatures that their assumptions are incorrect. This is how it's supposed to work.

For the President to stand up make the statement he did is constitutionally outrageous, and logically perverse. There are 51 different marriage laws in the U.S.; which ones was he referring to?

There is no "constitutional" right to "marry" someone of the same gender. It is perfectly constitutional for a state to discriminate in favor of one sort of relationship, as compared to other possible sorts. This legal and appropriate discrimination can be reflected in tax laws, rights of survivorship, rights to shared medical benefits and so forth.

This whole argument is nothing but a hissy-fit by those who are unhappy with the perfectly legitimate policy decisions of the sovereign States, and their attempt to FORCE them to conform to a contrary world view. Happily, we have the example of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which showed how Left-leaning desperate political hacks in the appellate courts are willing to mutiliate long-established principles of interpretation to achieve their desired ends. Would that Governor Romney had told them to put their opinion where the sun don't shine, and refused to go along with it.

As I have said before, I couldn't care less what any State does in this regard - they can do whatever they want - but I do object to bogus attempts to force States and their populations to embrace lifestyles that they find repugnant.

A word about the U.S. Episcopal Church. It is hardly indicative of Christian teaching when a desperate and dying denomination makes a horrific break from Biblical teachings, in a pathetic attempt to gather a few more Sunday donations. More than half of that denomination has abandoned it over this travesty. As they should have.

[Sue U]

"Marriage" is not a secular state, no matter how society tries to appropriate and distort the meaning of language

In fact, stretching back to the most ancient times, marriage has always been a "secular state," as it has always been a contractual agreement between the parties. It is religion (as well as a great deal of sentimentality) that has been more recently grafted onto marriage arrangements as a "sacrament" in Christian cultures, but fundamerntally it remains a set of promises and obligations imposed by contract and by operation of law, and those promises and obligations are relieved -- and the relationship dissolved -- according to the rules of the relevant jurisdiction.

The morality prescribed by God is entirely appropriate for any and all societies.

The "morality prescribed by God" in Islam allows a man to marry four wives; in historical and fundamentalist Mormonism, at least two wives. Polygyny and polyandry are featured in religious texts of Jews and Hindus, and are still practiced in some Middle Eastern and South Asian countries. Polygamy is still practiced in many African countries (including your own) as both a cultural and religious expression. Whose god has the monopoly on such moraity?

[Big RR]

Marriage is clearly secular, at least in most societies. After all, one gets divorced by the state, whether the religious insitutions recoognnize it or not, and are then free to marry again (although some religions bar their sanction on such second marrriages unless they also grant a divorce/annulment/whatever). Since religious insitutions can accept such pluralism re the dissolution of marriages (and save their condemnation of such dissolutions on their own flocks), why can't they do the same with same sex marriages?

[Sue U]

It is also the province of the State legislatures to make policy decisions with respect to social constructs, most notably, the nuclear family. If the legislature believes that the traditional man-woman marriage is a superior model for raising children, they are within their rights to codify that preference in the law

By that "logic," state legislatures are free to prohibit inter-racial marriages, inter-religious marriages, marriage of indigents, marriage of persons with physical or mental disabilities, or marriages of persons past child-bearing age, since such "policy decisions" are beyond constitutional question, according to you. Fortunately, actual constitutional jurisprudence demonstrates the exact opposite.

[Grim Reaper]

It is perfectly constitutional for a state to discriminate in favor of one sort of relationship, as compared to other possible sorts.

Except this isn't true. Perez v. Sharp ruled that anti-miscegenation laws at the state level were overruled by the Federal Constitution.