#226388 - 14/07/2004 19:26
Re: gay marriage
[Re: djc]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Here's a nice quote from Jefferson, too:
Quote:
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'
I've read T.J.'s letter to the Danbury Baptists. It is often used out of context. Nevertheless, that letter is no more Constitutional than Clinton's letter to Monica inviting her to a "friendly cigar party." 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226390 - 14/07/2004 19:31
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think the majority of population that doesn't subscribe to your particular faith would rather not have it dictate our government policies, thank you very much.
On the flip side, I'd rather not have someone's liberal agenda dictating government policies. Looks like we're in the same boat. 
Is equality too liberal of an agenda for you?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226391 - 14/07/2004 19:32
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
> Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.
Flawed in what way? I would state, in fact, that it is demonstratably true that morals are NOT absolutes, but do have some common basis across the human species.
The common argument against moral relativism is that if morals are relative there can be no real morals at all. But taking things from a scientific evolutionary standpoint, morals are right or wrong depending on how they affect the society. Not coincidentally, this is EXACTLY how morals are really defined and used in the real world, despite people's supposingly basing this in religion. As society changes, so do the details of what is immoral or not. It is NOT unchanging, which should be obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history.
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226392 - 14/07/2004 19:38
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Dinosaur bones don't discredit the Bible.
True enough. They just discredit a literal interpretation of the the Bible, and make you go through a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile the two without throwing the entire Bible in doubt.
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226393 - 14/07/2004 19:58
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Quote:
1. That Congress may not respect or pass laws concerning or favoring a specific religion, or...
2. That Congress may not pass a law instituting a state-sanctioned religion such as there was in England at the time.
For your #1 I want to point out a crucial distinction -- The distinction is that of a law that FAVORS a religion, and the law that IS ENTIRELY RELIGIOUSLY FOUNDED and IMPEDES on the rights of those that are not a party to that religion. There is a huge difference. It's one thing to give clergy a tax break -- while I don't necessarily agree with it, it's a relatively minor concession. It's quite another thing ENTIRELY to ban the behavior of a group of people based on a law that has its only basis in religion. That is, I should think, an obvious violation of any intepretation of the First Amendment. That's because to pass a law that is based purely in religion that decreases the rights of a group of citizens IS TO ESTABLISH A RELIGION. By all accounts, you've got a State Religion -- I don't know how else you could possibly define a state religious institution except that you have a government that enforces religious law.
Edited by mschrag (14/07/2004 19:59)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226394 - 14/07/2004 20:13
Re: gay marriage
[Re: mschrag]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
Really interestng link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/They break down the first amendment into tons of subcategories and cite case law explaining how courts have interpreted the various scenarios and subcategories. Seemed apropos.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226395 - 14/07/2004 20:28
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.
Ah, and who ever said that the effort to develop and maintain morals would *not* be flawed? That it would somehow be perfect --100% consistent? (OK, I'm answering my own question here: fundamentalists.) There is a reason ethicists have jobs.
Quote:
The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being.
And which of the myriad, ever-evolving unchanging forces and beings should we pick to provide our 100% consistent, no-thought-required morality?
Quote:
Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.
It would seem that even those folks continue to have debates about what the "absolute" interpretations are. Shades of grey interpretation sneaking their way into the absolute. What a pickle.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226396 - 15/07/2004 03:10
Re: gay marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
All morality is based upon some sort of guide - a rule or a plumb line by which it is measured. I'm assuming that the "common man morality" that you refer to is based on today's society or culture. Unfortunately, the idea of using society as a guide is flawed, as society (and those who influence it) are not consistent.
As others have mentioned, why is that a problem? Without that changing plumb line, we'd still be in a state where girls with pierced ears are immoral, interracial marriages are immoral, torture is moral, stoning people to death is moral, nudity is moral, masturbation is immoral, women showing the skin on their ankles is immoral, and on, and on, and on.
Quote:
The idea behind a spiritual morality is that it is based on an unchanging force or being.
Which is a fine idea, but is meaningless as a method of determining how humans ought to behave, because no-one can agree on what it is.
Quote:
Thus the conundrum that is vexing this conversation: if those who claim to be Christians adhere to the Bible as absolute, unchanging truth, there is no way they can accept homosexual marriage as a valid institution.
And they ought to still be running around stoning people, too, but they're not.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226397 - 15/07/2004 20:51
Re: gay marriage
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
And they ought to still be running around stoning people, too, but they're not.
I've always wondered why we never got to have a proper goat sacrifice in the temple, but I suppose you can't have everything.
I just slogged my way through this whole thread, and it's quite impressive to see all the arguments on both sides. I think a big part of the problem is the overloading of the single term "marriage". Marriage has (to some) a spiritual meaning. Marriage is also a legally sanctioned contractual relationship between two parties that effects one's legal rights as well as one's opportunities with third parties (e.g., spousal benefits from work).
My understanding of how Mexico does it is that "marriage" is a purely religious process that has no civil meaning whatsoever. When two Mexicans want to get married, they will typically have a religious ceremony and then head down to the courthouse to have a civil union. (Not that Mexico allows homosexual civil unions, but they do have a very strong idea of the separation of church and state.) In many respects, I think that would be the best outcome here as well. The government can sanction civil unions, and churches (or temples, or mosques, or amusement parks) can sanction marriages. The former imparts certain benefits and obligations before the law. The latter imparts spiritual benefits and obligations before your diety.
Hitting on some other topics that came up when reading through this thread...
Tony asserts that anti-gay-marriage sentiments seem to all be religious in nature, and therefore aren't appropriate for state policy. Part of the good and the bad of our system of government is that state policy is set, indirectly, as a function of the will of the people. And, the will of the people is informed by, among other things, their religious beliefs. To that end, it's entirely within reason for the people to desire not to give state-sanctioned benefits to same-sex couples, to undocumented immigrants, or various other categories of people. Things only get interesting if you try to reach for lower-level principles and apply them to higher-level policies. If your principle is "equal rights for women, minorities, and people with disabilities or different sexual preferences", then that principle leads you to oppose many current forms of state-sanctioned discrimination. If your principles are elsewhere, then you'll feel differently.
Ultimately, what we're seeing in the national debate is a clash of principles, and that's why certain issues never seem to leave anybody satisfied. Issues like gay marriage or abortion just press those hot buttons and people polarize according to their principles.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226398 - 16/07/2004 10:21
Re: gay marriage
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3582
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Although I suspect we're on opposing sides of the issue, I'd like to say "Well said, Dan".
Edited by JBjorgen (16/07/2004 10:21)
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226399 - 16/07/2004 12:50
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Although I suspect we're on opposing sides of the issue, I'd like to say "Well said, Dan".
Agreed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#226400 - 16/07/2004 12:58
Re: gay marriage
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Yes, Dan. Very well put.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index