Gay marriage and the law

quote:

---

Subbie, explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage.

---

You have injected morals in to it, which, really, is not a problem for me because that is the only reason the law exists to begin with. But when I go in to explaining my moral outlook, you then turn it in to an issue of invoking a religion. In effect, you make it so you can introduce any arbitrary moral while denuding everyone else of it.You can't deny the fact that you would all but have to introduce a moral outlook in to the interpretation of the Constitution on the grounds of it being so vague that the Framers intended people to intrinsically understand its value.If homosexual marriage is a basic right, what arbitrates that? What basis do you have to allow this, but not to allow something like incest? Don't dismiss it either. Its a perfectly valid question, because until you can explain to all of us why it is a basic right for homosexuals to marry, you can in no wise begin to explain why it is not a right for those engaged in incestuous relationships. Subbie, come on now... Think this through, please. The ONLY reason why the Constitution exists is on the basis of a moral framework. They aren't choosing arbitrary things to hold in such high regard. The Framers intended people to live out their God-given (choose any other source of absolute value if you'd like) inalienable rights.The Supreme Court exists to act as an interpreter of that Constitution. This panel of Justices then decides what is the, for lack of a better word, esprit de corp behind it -- the deeper meaning behind it. Except you have NOT even begun to offer a basis for why it is a fundamental right. You in fact can't, without injecting some moral in to it. Your position is completely indefensible until you offer one up. You can't just say over and over again that it is a right without explaining why it is a right. More to the point, you can't say over and over again that is a right, all the while excluding others without a reasonable basis for doing for so.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Please don't act like the Constitution hasn't a thing to do with ethics. The very word "rights" should immediately send a bell off in your head that we are in fact dealing with ethics.Secondly, the Constitution has also outlined that the third branch of government, the Judiciary, shall be not exceed the Powers over the first and third.Thirdly, the Lawerence case that everyone keeps bringing up has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with a sodomy law in Texas, where police happened upon a gay couple engaging in sodomy. The question then became which trumps the other -- they were engaging in unlawful acts, yes, but were in the privacy of their home. Since they are protected by unreasonable searches and seizures, which affords all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc, etc EQUAL protection.What is going on now is that you are saying we need equal protection for homosexuals. They already have it, and rightfully so! You are conflating the issue to where protection of the law means that people can get married. One has nothing to do with the other. So the Lawerence case people keep bringing up is irrelevant to gay marriage.The Loving case has nothing to do, whatsoever, with homosexual marriage. It has to do with interracial marriage. If you want to utilize this case to present bias, I'm all for it. Just don't say that I'm OT in the process when I mention pedophilia or incest or what have you. Because we are both establishing baselines for prejudices and preferences. And the law says that homosexual marriage will not be recognized. The United States Congress has said that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. You keep talking about the Constitution, not me. I then ask you to back up why ANY Amendment pertains to homosexual marriage. You have avoided answering it like the plague because surely you know that by doing so, you would in effect be making a moral judgment. If something is an inherent right, what else do you call that Subbie? What else do you call that? Where does it come from? Does nature provide you with inherent rights? If so, how, being that it does not have any cognizance? Brother, I'm right on topic. Substantiate your claim that homosexual marriage is a basic right. At least provide the legal justification for why it is so? You keep mentioning the Supreme Court. What case has legalized homosexual marriage, per the Constitution?If one does not exist, then aren't we going to end up discussing why it is either a good thing or a bad thing, per our understandings of the morals involved?You would have a better case, in my opinion, making the argument that the government has no business in the affairs of what should be delegated by either a state or a religion. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

My gosh, man, are you so obtuse that you don't realize you are saying the same thing? A "right" is morally dictated, Rahvin. Really, really think about that for a moment. Then what legally makes homosexual marriage permissible, whereas pedophilia, incest, beastiality, etc are not? On what grounds, since marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman? If you really want to fight for homosexual marriage, then you should fight to get the Federal government out of it. Something of this nature should be left for the states to decide for themselves.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

That's fine. I have no problem with you trying to establish a base line for equal protection. But where then does the line stop? When do we say that is an absurdity to allow sons to marry their mothers, for women to marry goats, for children to marry men or women, etc? Couldn't they make the same exact argument you are making for any number of those things?Where is the line of demarcation? If that's the case, then why do you want the Federal government involved with it? Why not just go to your state Representative and plead with him/her? And I have asked for you to define what "rights" entail. I could say that is my right to marry my sister. What legal objection would you make against it or for it? But it doesn't say anything like that. Who says that Equal Protection refers to whether or not someone can get married? Protection means that the government will legally protect you, not that it will ensure you marry whomever or whatever you want.Secondly, if marriage is specifically defined as being between a man and a woman, how then is it feasible for people of the same sex to ever be married? It seems to me that your first hurdle in seeing this come to fruition is to repeal the definition of marriage.In the event that they don't see it your way, would you be satisfied with a Civil Union? If homosexuals simply want to profess their love and affection for one another, nothing them prohibits them from doing so. If they want to have the same legal recognitions as married people, this would afford them the exact same thing, only it wouldn't be a marriage, it would be a civil union.It would be as arbitrary as trying to distinguish the meanings between men's basketball and women's basketball -- they are the same, in essence. Agreed, however, it seems that all laws derive first from a moral. If we have a right, it is because we believe in our heart of hearts that there is something intrinsically good about it.It may be morally good for me to save a drowning victim. However, I am not legally responsible to jump in the water to save that person. I could legally sit there and watch them drown. Morally repugnant? Yeah. Legally accountable. No. I understand the difference.But if something is a "right", then really what we are talking about is that it is moral obligation to protect that right. So it seems to me that unless you are able to distinguish the difference between the right to marry another man from marrying a specific man -- your brother -- I hardly see how we will be able to get from point A to point Z, let alone Point A to Point B.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

I'm not really sure what you are referencing, but I think state rights is slowly being swallowed up by the government.The Federalist Papers outline all the hopes of avoiding the pitfalls of what has befallen many nations.The beauty of this country is that if you don't like what is going on in Connecticut, you can move to Colorado. If you don't like what is going on in Kansas, you can move to Iowa, and so on. That is pretty unique.The only need for a centralized government is the protection of the People (i.e. military, critical infrastructure, economy) and a postal service. And hell, even the postal service is being outdone by private companies. I would ten times rather FedEx to handle my packages than USPS. Beyond that, I see no need for it.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Aside from saying "consent" in gigantic letters, you haven't explained it. Nor have you given a reason why consent is the be-all, end-all qualifier. I'm waiting for the punchline. Suit yourself. If you can't define what a right is or how it becomes a right, how is any of that supposed to make sense? Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why homosexual marriage is a right? You just keep referring to the Constitution, all the while neglecting to explain why you believe it is Constitutionally protected.But I digress since I've said this 18 times now with no real answer from you.

quote:

---

And I have asked for you to define what "rights" entail. I could say that is my right to marry my sister. What legal objection would you make against it or for it?

---

See? You can't even climb on to a curb four inches high. Why would I presume to think you have a rational basis for this subject?

quote:

---

Secondly, if marriage is specifically defined as being between a man and a woman, how then is it feasible for people of the same sex to ever be married? It seems to me that your first hurdle in seeing this come to fruition is to repeal the definition of marriage.

---

That doesn't answer the question. You are changing the definition of a word to suit an agenda. Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?

quote:

---

In the event that they don't see it your way, would you be satisfied with a Civil Union?

---

That's not what I asked you. I asked for your personal opinion on the matter. Safety and cohesion. It is bad to unnecessarily hurt someone else when it can be avoided. Designing a system in the interest of cohesion means that less people will be hurt as a result. Agreed. What makes it so?Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage. Context is important whenever we want to understand other people and to have them understand us. The context of marriage, by all definitional rights, is a union between an adult male, and an adult female. That's what it is within those parameters. If we were to go by your loose definition, we could marry cars, and boats, and kids, and cats. Women's tennis will never be men's tennis for the sole fact that a woman is not a man, and man is not a woman. You are asking the world to change its definition in order to suit an agenda. Why not have civil unions that offer the same protections and benefits of marriage? Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution. I'm all for that. Nobody seems to be outraged over that little incursion which is unconstitutional. If you want to fight for the Constitution, fight for that. It would be easier to marry homosexuals that way anyhow. Who could stop them? Doesn't mean God will honor it, but they would at least be able to do it if a minister allowed it.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

The sole existence of all people is attendant upon the notion of procreation, which is the very basis for the institution of marriage itself. The very core of its existence in human civilization is to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Playing a game of semantics assumes that the institution of marriage has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim. -Alan Keyes I'm simply telling you that if we are going to introduce arbitrary whims, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

quote:

---

:Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage.

---

Absolutely not since race has never been a qualifier of a marriage, but gender is. You are adding a superfluous element to it that does not (dis)qualify a marriage."the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

quote:

---

In the context of marriage, by all definitional rights, it is a union of an adult male with as many females of any age he cares to take on.

---

Because its an historical fact. Where is the line in the sand? Until you define marriage within specified parameters, its loose meanings will trek on with the wild vagaries of man's mind.

quote:

---

:Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution.

---

Then you should have no problem with a civil union, if the symbolism is completely irrelevant in your mind. If simply about legal questions concerning things like inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, or property rights, then a civil union will provide that without butchering the institution of marriage. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Why should I, since its been hijacked?!?!? Get your own definition for you and your boyfriend, Rrhain. Sanctification and marriage already have their definitions, and have for millennia. Not a single one of you can explain to me why homosexual marriage is a right in the first place. Consequently, by your rationale you can't give me a legitimate reason not extrapolate marriage to mean a union between _________ (fill in the blank). In fact, barring anyone from redefining marriage to suit any particular hankering could be construed as unconstitutional. How progressive of you! I never said, nor did I imply that marriage is unconstitutional. The Establishment Clause. I just want someone to tell me why homosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution. Is an incredibly simple question, but no one has touched it with a ten foot pole. Indeed they can't without injecting some moral basis to it.

quote:

---

oesn't mean God will honor it

---

That doesn't mean that God Himself approves. That means liberal pulpits have butchered the very parameters their religion has set forth.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Then it also hasn't the ability to object to its own torture. By this slippery slope argument, we should be allowed to electrocute and drown dogs to our hearts delight. We should also be allowed to legally marry our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, so long as we give the consent.And for the sake of the argument, suppose my wife and I desire to marry other people while in this marriage. She decides she wants to marry another man, and I another woman. I protest that I don't want her to marry another man, but the decision is between her and him. She isn't my property, is she? And she doesn't want me to marry the other woman, but the decision is between the other woman and myself. I'm not her property, am I?Therefore while consent is certainly a grand thing, it is not the sole qualifier to what is moral, just, and good. Then a civil union will alleviate that without having to redefine what a marriage is in the process. Some say that is a revisiting of Separate but equal, but I submit that it is no more than the difference between women's basketball and men's basketball.

quote:

---

Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?

---

But who cares? If we are going to redefine meaning, then I can just redefine it to mean whatever the hell I want. I now wed my computer by the power vested in me.Obviously it is all very silly, and I intended for it to be sarcastic. The greater point I am illustrating is where will conceivably end so that no one can say their rights have been abrogated? A right defined before-the-fact, not after. In society we use words that have been pre-defined in order to communicate.Some people upon being asked if words have any meaning, or do we assign meaning to words as we go along, answer: No, we assign meaning to it as we go along. Obviously that is not the case because how have you even understood what I asked you if that is so? I submit that it is a God-invention. I obviously cannot prove that, so for the time being it is useless to go in to discourse about it. Supposing that marriage is a human invention, it was invented for men and women to be between men and women. History speaks for itself. It may have very practical purposes to it, none of which I would deny. But if we are currently discussing Constitutional rights, this is a clear intrusion of the State against religion. Yes, its still tennis. So what in the world is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? One involves opposite sex couples and the other involves same-sex couples. Surely this is a fair compromise. Why the same name if they are not the same thing? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period. I have no desire to outlaw homosexual practices. I have no desire to stop them from devoting themselves to one another. Go, do it... I won't stop you. But please do not infringe upon the institution of marriage and expect us to eradicate time-honored traditions that have stood since the dawn of man. When the Constitution was written, the State had no interference in marriage. And why is that? Because people in those days had a little something we in our society has lost -- honor. The belief was that God honored the marriage, and that's all that really mattered. Now, of course I understand what you mean by legal recognition. But we seemed to operate just fine under that oath of honor. Then you also should have no reason to deny those very protections to families that choose to engage in incest and pedophilia.Where is the line in the sand?This will be my last post on this thread. I think this is the third consecutive thread concerning homosexuality in some capacity, and I've grown disinterested in repeating myself. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.Thanks to all who participated. I know we've had heated moments, but I think it is important for people in a free society to share their concerns so we get all sides of the story. There is beauty in that.So for what its worth, I wish all my opponents all the best in their crusade for homosexual marriage.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis