General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2138940

    Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

    Locked

    by drowningnotwaving ·

    { Inspired and enabled by the previous encouraging series of posts, of course! 🙂 } …

    I read with shock and awe, the announcement from Barack Obama that he’s now evolved his thinking to say (as reported, let me add) “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

    Personally I can’t see how we as a community can do anything else but enable full access to full rights for all human beings.

    Enabling other people to enjoy the same legal and moral rights that I do, doesn’t diffuse or dilute those rights for me, whatsoever. Indeed the opposite.

    I would have thought documents like the US Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US constitution make people’s fundamental access to rights very clear. All people being equal and all that stuff. Those and similar documents don’t qualify people who have three limbs, red hair or vote Green (more’s the pity, perhaps, on the latter).

    But then there’s the political reality. Like admitting that the War on Drugs makes drug lords and corrupt cops both very rich. Like admitting that the longer term outlook in Afghanistan is unchanged, despite thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars. Few political leaders would be so naive to ignore the outcome of a public statement in support of gay marriage, no matter how it is ‘positioned’ or ‘massaged’.

    Did Obama just put the pistol to his own head? Perhaps seeing the end of his presidency as a foregone conclusion, did he decide to take his own moral high-ground?

    Or is he some inspired genius about to make yet another mark on the global political landscape?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2885096

      NOT marriage, maybe a domestic partnership or civil union but not marriage

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      If the sole intent is to allow partners to make life decisions and control a partners estate upon death. It still comes down to the states deciding what to allow and how to apply the desired measures. Don’t redefine the term for marriage just to satisfy the “civil rights” of same sex partners in single household.

      • #2885071

        It’s not necessary, but I don’t see the harm, either.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to NOT marriage, maybe a domestic partnership or civil union but not marriage

        Marriage is already a bunch of other things than the church gig, so I definitely don’t see where the huge problem would be in same-sex marriage.
        On the other hand, if this “marriage term controversy” helps the “hegemosexual lobby” to prevent access to basic protections, then by all means circumvent it.

      • #2885062

        It is so much more than that

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to NOT marriage, maybe a domestic partnership or civil union but not marriage

        To me marriage is the act of creating a lifelong committment of yourself to your partner, in front of your friends and family and optionally God, and having the state notified for legal reasons. And I say this as someone who is going through divorce proceedings, and has spent much time thinking about it.

        Many couples live together as common law couples. In my jurisdiction, if they live together for six months, they are considered common law couple, and they have most but not all of the rights of a married couple. But you can be common law in a passive sense. Being married in a ceremony is an active statement to the world.

        I don’t think that the state should ever define my right to choose my partner in life. I think a church can and should decide if they want to marry my partner and I, and they already do – as a non-Catholic for example, I can’t be married by a Catholic priest. Leave all of that up to the churches to decide. Let the state keep their nose out.

        You may not like the idea of gay marriage, but to openly oppose it, you have to go farther than that. You have to oppose equality. I am not a muslim or a jew, and I don’t believe what they believe in, but I believe in their right to worship as they see fit(as long as it doesn’t infringe on my rights to do the same). I am not gay, but I believe in the rights of all to chose who they love, and sanctify that love with a marriage ceremony and have all the rights as a married couple as straight married couples do.

        I come at this as a bit of a libertarian. I’m not pushing some “agenda”, I am concerned that so many people who want the government out of their lives in some areas are willing to use the government to discriminate in one of the most personal areas of anyone’s life. If I want others to respect my rights, I have to also respect theirs.

        • #2885051

          Excellent post

          by cmiller5400 ·

          In reply to It is so much more than that

          I couldn’t have said it any better.

        • #2885044

          Agreed

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to It is so much more than that

          And I totally resemble that remark. I have friends that are of different faiths and gay friends as well. I love them all as the people they are and I respect their beliefs.

    • #2885094

      I applaud President Obama

      by av . ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      I never expected him to support same-sex marriage either, but I have so much respect for him that he did and that he was honest and spoke about how he arrived at his evolving decision. We all know gay people, gay couples and I’ve never understood why they, as taxpayers, should not have the same rights as me.

      Obama really had to take a stand on this issue, and I think he was being honest, come what may. I don’t think he planned it as part of his campaign, it really came in response to the NC amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions and Joe Biden’s comments that he was comfortable with gay marriage. The President had to make a stand.

      Obama really put himself out there today and I think he said something that needed to be said. I think the focus should be on why states like NC would deny civil rights to taxpaying citizens because they have a different lifestyle than the norm.

      His decision to make a stand will force his Democratic constituents to talk about their views on gay marriage. That may not play well in the south, but those people need to look past their prejudices and realize that we are all taxpaying Americans and deserve the same rights. Forget about the bedroom.

      AV

      PS: Thank you DNW for your post. One day you should explain how you came up with your name

      • #2884994

        One might think that gushy assessment came from Chris Matthews

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I applaud President Obama

        Fawning over the courage of Barack Hussein Obama over how his opinion has evolved. Give me a friggin break! How can people be so duped by this stuff?

        It was a political calculation, plain and simple. Even Joe Biden was chastised for upsetting the timing of the announcement, lest you think it was not a timed political calculation.

        Will Barack Hussein Obama’s support of gay marriage be part of the Democratic Party Platform? Im guessing no.

        Will Barack Hussein Obama support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between people other than one man and one woman? Not in your dreams.

        So what did Barack Hussein Obama do? He did what he does best. Drive yet another wedge into the minds of the electorate. Class warfare. Divisiveness, etc. Pit one group against another. Social demagoguery. That’s what he does. And that’s what he did again. No more, no less.

        Just like the bogus war on women issue that was totally contrived, this was also a political calculation intended to distract attention from the REAL issues, including, but not limited to, the looming debt question that will, once again, arise as the newly established debt ceiling is pushed even higher – something Obama and the Democrats claimed would not happen again until well into the twenty-teens.

        And what a distraction from those massive Barrack Hussein Obamas deficits, which, over the past three years of Obamas administration, have exceeded the GW Bush deficits over the entire eight years of his administration.

        And what a distraction from the lives lost in Afghanistan – more over the past three years than the previous seven combined.

        And what a distraction from the campaign lies spewed in the 2008 election.

        And what a distraction from the scandals of this administration, including, but not limited to, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Holder, hidden records, secretive background, etc.

        And what a distraction from $5 gasoline.

        And what a distraction from an unemployment sector that remains terribly high.

        And what a distraction from…….

        The sad part is, people actually buy into the diversions.

        • #2884971

          And, of course…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to One might think that gushy assessment came from Chris Matthews

          …during Obama’s term in office, no other politician has ever engaged in any of the following behaviors: “Drive yet another wedge into the minds of the electorate. Class warfare. Divisiveness, etc. Pit one group against another. Social demagoguery.”

          …the deficits, the war, the unemployment, and everything else (and the policies that created them) didn’t exist on January 19, 2009, but auto-magically appeared from nowhere on January 20.

          …his opposition has been doing everything in their power to help him succeed.

          You would have done better to simply complain about the timing, without the added commentary.

        • #2883528

          And also, of course, I acknowledge that . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And, of course…

          …. you don’t see the big picture ……. that is, my [i]”big picture”[/i] ……. that is, even which [i]”big picture”[/i] I’m referring to!

          Re: [i]”You would have done better to simply complain about the timing, without the added commentary. “[/i]

          Next time, perhaps I’ll check with you to determine how I should reply to all the different people around here.

        • #2883515

          The tone of your post

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to And also, of course, I acknowledge that . . . . .

          as I read it, was that everything wrong in the world is the fault of Obama, with no acknowledgement of history or the conditions existing at his inauguration. In other words, pretty much the same tone heard on Fox News, from the WSJ, and from all the other “everything bad that happens is Obama’s fault” talking herd.

          That almost directly contradicts what I understand of your previously stated “big picture”.

          Obama expressed a personal viewpoint, that denying the legal and financial benefits of marriage to gays simply because they are gay is not consistent with Constitutional principles. Can he not have opinions because he is President?

        • #2883495

          It only took a couple of days . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The tone of your post

          ….. of posting before someone criticized [i]”the tone”[/i] of my message. That must be a record of sorts.

          I guess I never realized that a message must have one distinct [i]”tone”[/i] that appeals to, and can be understood by, scores, or hundreds, or maybe even thousands of readers.

          I’ll be sure to mind my timbre. I sure don’t want to strike a sour note with a TR Moderator!

        • #2883474

          Sarcasm…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to It only took a couple of days . . . . . .

          …approved.

          Perhaps I explained it poorly. I had thought you more just than to imply a single individual could be responsible for problems that have been 30 years or more in the making.

        • #2883472

          Nick – Re: Interpreting / Reading Messages

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It only took a couple of days . . . . . .

          My [i]”bigger picture”[/i] might be better described as follows:

          I can say with 100 percent certainty that AV (the person to whom my message was in reply) read my message, and took away from it something entirely different that you did (or someone else might have). It was intended for AV, who has other bits and pieces of this or that, which all makes my message something more tuned for AV’s ears (eyes). (Realizing, of course, that other people will be reading it.)

          To say it was an [i]”inside joke”[/i] might be a good comparison. Likewise, AV has some [i]”inside information”[/i] that you don’t have, with which my message can be further processed and understood. As such, I might surmise that you and AV saw two totally different messages, at least in its totality.

        • #2883489

          Gushy? Not really, Max

          by av . ·

          In reply to One might think that gushy assessment came from Chris Matthews

          Since the Republican-controlled NC legislature introduced an amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions, the media has had an ongoing discussion about marriage equality. Joe Biden’s comments were in response to that ongoing conversation. Obama had to give more of a response than to say his views on marriage equality were “evolving”, especially after Joe Biden’s comments.

          If it was a political calculation by Obama as you say, it was a poor one. There are 30 states that have some kind of gay marriage ban in place. I think he would have rather not talked about this extremely divisive subject at all, but he was backed into a corner.

          I applaud Obama for his courage to give a very honest opinion of why there should be marriage equality. He spoke from the heart and risked his re-election because of his views. At the same time though, he gave hope to the many gay people in this country that they might one day be free to marry who they choose and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. I think his opinion will inspire younger voters who don’t have a problem with marriage equality.

          I don’t think Obama wants to go any further with this issue at this time either, but now the issue has legs, so to speak and eventually it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the state amendments infringe on civil rights.

          There is an upside for Romney in this too. The social conservatives will now feel more comfortable voting for him because he says he doesn’t believe in marriage equality.

          All of these social issues are a huge distraction for sure, but I think the election will still be decided on economic issues. Both parties share in the blame for our country’s woes because they can’t work together and fix the problems. The truth is, after almost four years of Obama’s leadership, we are still just treading water and going nowhere. Everyone sees that. We need someone that has strong leadership abilities to get the country out of this, but sadly it isn’t Obama or Romney.

          AV

        • #2437046

          Sure, a political calculation. Not one he wanted at this time.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to One might think that gushy assessment came from Chris Matthews

          Joe Biden’s announcement forced Obama’s hand. He had to make a statement. Large forces within the Democratic party support gay rights, including marriage. If Obama said he could not back gay marriage now, or worse, that he could never accept the concept of gays being recognized as entitled to the status of married people, he would have ignited civil war in his party. So, he announced he had “evolved.”

          The more politic thing would have been to keep quiet while the rest of society worked closer to recognizing this as a human right. There are lots of moderate Democrats, as well as the whole evangelical group that has now become almost exclusively Republican, who are offended by it. He’s just fired up more anger and opposition that he just didn’t need. The whole gay marriage issue is a wedge, but it’s not one that favors Obama.

        • #2437042

          He can get away with saying anything he likes at the moment

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Sure, a political calculation. Not one he wanted at this time.

          as there’s virtually no chance of any such legislation being put up before they close down for the next election, and if he wins he doesn’t have to suit anyone but himself and if he loses he’s out anyway. However, with what he’s said and shown over the last two and a half years there’s no way in hell Obama will actually sign off on any gay marriage legislation if it gets to him, no matter what.

    • #2885090
      Avatar photo

      Perhaps we should instead look at what is being asked for here

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      The term Marriage is very badly misunderstood and instead of allowing Gay People to [b]”Get Married”[/b] we should allow [b]”Civil Unions”[/b] [b]and remove the Legal Implications from the Cristian Beliefs of what Marriage is.[/b]

      Enable Same Sex Couples to have the [b]Same Legal Rights[/b] as Heterosexual Couples but remove the Term Marriage to anything but a Christian Joining and most defiantly remove the [b]Legal Implications from the Christian Beliefs[/b] which to be perfectly honest where never there in the first place but have grown up Legally around the Church State to Propagate the Species.

      The Pauline Church Introduced Marriage to Improve/Strengthen it’s Powers [i]hold over it’s followers[/i] and the State followed along with Legal Rights for that Pauline Church Union. What should be freely available to any who wishes it here is the Legal Rights that go along with what we now call Marriage but to get rid of the [b]Rabid Pauline Christian Fanatics[/b] we should remove all [b]State Sponsored Legal Rights/Obligations[/b] from the Marriage that is accepted by the Church. It will at least give the Loony Christian something real to complain about when they realize that they have no more rights than any other member of the society who protects them from their own stupidity.

      Personally I don’t give a Rats if Same Sex Couples can marry or not but I do find it Discriminatory that they are prevented from having the same Legal Rights as others in the same Society for no better reason than that they like someone from their own sex more than from the other sex.

      That is called [b]”Individual Choice”[/b] and I really don’t have a problem with it where as those Married Christians who come to my door uninvited attempting to Pervert me to their way of thinking along with their Wives and snotty Nosed Sick Children hoping for Sympathy should have the [b]Legal Niceties[/b] removed from what they rely on as the Backbone of their flawed belief system to have the same Legal Rights as anyone else who doesn’t care one way or the other.

      The Problem here is the Word Marriage and it’s the Lonnie Christian Groups who object most strongly with what is effectively stupid retorts that are not backed up by the sources that they quote. Remember despite Popular Belief Cinderella wore Fur Slippers not Glass and Electricity flows from Negative to Positive not Positive to Negative.

      Marriage is a Legal Union between People and it’s only the Church which claims that it’s between a Man & a Woman for the Proposes of Procreation. Apparently if a Married Couple do not or can not have children they are somehow less than Married in the Eyes of some Church Members and Followers.

      Personally the Heterosexuals have so badly messed up Marriage that I feel [b]”What the Hell”[/b] let the Gays get married [b]they couldn’t make it any worse.[/b] 😉

      Col

      • #2885047

        Quibble.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Perhaps we should instead look at what is being asked for here

        “remove the Term Marriage to anything but a Christian Joining”

        Replace ‘Christian’ with ‘religious’ and I’m with you. The government should do a ‘Find and Replace All’ operation on every occurrence of the word ‘marriage’ in our laws and substitute ‘civil union’.

        • #2885015
          Avatar photo

          Pally I really don’t have a problem with that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Quibble.

          It’s just that as the West is predominately Christian it’s Laws reflect Christian Values.

          After all there currently are no Western Countries with Shara Laws which predominate and God Help us all if that was ever to happen. 😉

          Col

    • #2885087

      Homophobia is like Racism and Sexism

      by snak ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      …. and Stoutism, Dwarfism, Ageism and any other -ism you can think of. It’s time we abolished words like these (and the concepts behind them). ANY form of discrimination or prejudice is, and can be described by, ‘Social Prejudice’. And Social Prejudice (or any sub-type) is, or should be, a crime. Social Prejudism on grounds of skin colour, sex, age etc. is just as ridiculous as on grounds of ginger hair, flat feet, green eyes, long/short/no hair. We are all Human.

      With no prejudice on grounds of difference, the topic of ‘same-sex’ marriage goes away because any coupling or grouping just becomes a coupling or grouping of two or more people – each with identical rights and with no discrimination between or against them.

      I once raised this in another forum and was told that the concept of ‘Racism’ should be maintained so that ‘we can fight it’. I do of course exclude from this argument ‘stupidism’. That’s fair game.

      • #2885042

        Homophobia is like Homosexualism

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to Homophobia is like Racism and Sexism

        Both are behavior sets around the concept homosexuality, which is an improper concept, so they are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. There are two underlying issues, viz. sexual inversion of the erotic instincts, a psychological condition; and the set of behaviors, including buggary, tribadism, cunnilingus, what-have-you called by the biologists simulated copulation, by the moralists mutual masturbation and perhaps by most people sexual perversion (although they are actually perversions of eroticism away from sexuality). When these two phenomena coincide in a person we call that person gay, or queer.

        I spent a lot of time trying to make this distinction to a gay friend (he used to walk in the Gay Pride parade with a sign proclaiming “God is gay”), who started correcting his language but did not, alas, live long enough to transform his doctrines.

        • #2885032

          “…homosexuality, which is an improper concept,…”

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Homophobia is like Homosexualism

          “sexual inversion of the erotic instincts”

          Clarification, please. What is ‘sexual inversion’? Googling the phrase yields results mostly from the early 20th century. Many of those refer to the phrase as synonymous with ‘homosexuality’ and describe it as ‘innate’. With no modern definitions to work from, can we associate ‘innate’ with ‘instinctive’? Do we all have the same ‘erotic instincts’? If so, why do some find certain acts or behaviors as erotic while others do not? If not, who or what defines some instincts as ‘proper’ and some as ‘improper’?

          “the set of behaviors, including buggary, tribadism, cunnilingus”

          The first and last of these behaviors are not limited to homosexuals; heterosexuals perform them too, along with variations of the second. Indeed, this heterosexual performed at least one of them this morning. Are these behaviors ‘improper’ only when homosexuals engage in them, or are they also ‘improper’ when done by heterosexuals? If ‘improper’ in all cases, is heterosexuality also then an ‘improper concept’?

          “we call that person gay, or queer.”

          We? Maybe you do, but many us have moved ‘queer’ to the same ashcan as ‘sp!ck’, ‘k!ke’, and ‘n!gger’.

          And no, I didn’t give you the ‘-1’ vote.

        • #2885025

          Yes, heterosexuality is an improper concept

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to “…homosexuality, which is an improper concept,…”

          The words “heterosexual”, “homosexual” and “bisexual” attempt to cover a set of bases, but close examination reveals that they do not work very well. It was in fact by consideration of the uses of “heterosexual” that I came to the realization that all 3 concepts are improper. Now, “homosexuality” is sometimes used as a synonym for sexual inversion, but the word has become too loaded with other meanings to be of any real use in intelligent discussion.

          I have not said that the behaviors I mentioned are in any sense improper – if you think they are sinful, then obviously a two-sex couple engaging in them is more sinful than a one-sex couple, because the two-sex couple has the option of copulation, which is at worst a “natural sin” and at best a sacramental.

          I have not said that anyone’s instincts are in any sense improper. I merely attempt to clear the field for intelligent discussion of biology, behavior and, as you have brought it up, morality.

          The gays where I work have a “Queer Resource Center”, so obviously the connotations of words are different between California and South Carolina. Oddly enough, in British Manchester the people who call themselves queer are the sexual inverts who live as gays most of the time but about once a month engage in copulation just to prove they can.

        • #2885016

          Thank you. No text.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Yes, heterosexuality is an improper concept

          .

        • #2883511

          Given that “sin” and “sacrament”

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Yes, heterosexuality is an improper concept

          are based in religion, also a human construct, they are, with respect to sexual conduct , constructs as artificial as homosexuality…

        • #2885019

          Sexual Inversion

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to “…homosexuality, which is an improper concept,…”

          There are pills for that, surely.

          Having read the OP around five times, I think the point is that people should do whatever they want and not worry so much about what other people think, as long as no other people, animals, or livestock get hurt in the process.

          It’s like p0rnography, it’s impossible to describe but I know it when I see it.

        • #2885013

          If there are such pills (which I doubt)

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Sexual Inversion

          a bill proposed by Senator Lieu would make it illegal to prescribe them in California.

          As for the question of doing what one wants… what if doing what one likes gives scandal, i.e. encourages others to sin, or somehow degrades humanity? I think that the latter is perhaps important because rights are not really self-evident but derive from human dignity, and it is for the sake of human dignity that states forbid cruelty to animals, not for that of any rights the animals have.

        • #2884996

          “encourages others to sin”

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to If there are such pills (which I doubt)

          Define ‘sin’ in a legal context. Gay marriage (or civil union, if you prefer) is a legal issue. No one disputes the right of a religious organization to sanction only those partnerships that meet its requirements. But US law supposedly isn’t biased toward the beliefs of any one religion.

          As to degrading humanity, if love between two people is the most degrading behavior being exhibited then I submit humanity is in pretty good shape.

        • #2883526

          Love itself is not the issue

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to “encourages others to sin”

          Love is the only thing that cannot harm your neighbor, one of the NT letters says somewhere. But one might argue that mutual masturbation is contrary to human dignity – again with the understanding that it is more easily pardonable when the participants cannot copulate.

        • #2883507

          Are they doing it in public?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to “encourages others to sin”

          If not, why is it even anybody else’s business?

          All the religion-based arguments used by Christians against homosexuality (and they are [u]all[/u] based on religion) ignore the statement in Genesis 1:27 that man was created in God’s image and that in Genesis 1:31, God saw that everything he had created was “very good”. For self-described Christians to call homosexuality (for want of another word) “un-Godly” or “the Devil’s work” strongly implies their disapproval of the work of God…

        • #2883499

          Human dignity

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to “encourages others to sin”

          Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, “Man is the only animal that blushes; or needs to.”

          There’s little dignified about The Beast With Two Backs; at least, not if you’re doing it right.

        • #2883525

          In this particular context, there is an important point

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to If there are such pills (which I doubt)

          I forgot to add “in the privacy of one’s bedroom with two (or more) consenting adults”

          The right to privacy really blows apart the whole idea that particular sexual activities are somehow morally wrong, an affront to humanity., or there is harm in encouraging others to do whatever it is they want to do within the legally defined boundaries of their bedroom, (with other consenting adult or adults, and with whatever food products or industrial machinery they might fancy.)

          My statements about livestock were meant to be a joke since the law proscribes that only adult humans of sound mind are capable of granting consent.

          God created sex, and God created pleasure, but since us humans have free will, last time I checked, exactly how we all get from point A to point B is not something that society or the government should monitor, regulate, or control, and if God has a problem with it, we either will or will not have he__ to pay in the end, depending if the athiests were right or not.

          We cannot regulate if people do things below their dignity, and scandal, per-se, tends to be a mixture of hatred, jealousy, and a misguided attempt for one group to impose their moral standards on another group.

          The ‘Sake of Human Dignity’ does indeed grant rights to animals; it is fairly self-evident that animals feel pain and experience hunger, therefore animal cruelty laws forbid these things; it’s not a vague moral construct, but specific actions that are allowed or forbidden.

          Human dignity can and should be the basis of our laws, and we also expect that our judicial system helps to apply these laws fairly, but on their own, they are little more than the ‘church lady’ making a really sour face.

        • #2883523

          What should be the basis for our laws?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          Re: [i]”Human dignity can and should be the basis of our laws….”[/i]

          I thought the basis for our laws was the US Constitution, which has its basis on the concept of individual liberty.

        • #2883520

          On that basis Max

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          If the basis of the US Constitution is individual liberty, then how can states deny individuals the right to marry who they chose?

          BTW our Canadian consitution isn’t so individually based, but it was still used as the basis to allow gay marriage in Canada, as a prohibition on descrimination based on sexual orientation was already in the Charter of Rights which is a key part of our constituion.

        • #2883494

          James:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          Re: [i]If the basis of the US Constitution is individual liberty, then how can states deny individuals the right to marry who they chose?[/i]

          It’s already established that states have a right to define parameters of what may or may not constitutes a marriage. That’s not really debatable.

          The question is whether or not those parameters (laws) are in conflict with either a granted power (a provision) contained within the US Constitution, or if they actually do violate a constitutionally protected right. I’d love to witness such a debate in front of our nine Supreme Court judges and possibly learn the answer to that question myself.

          Moreover, a discussion regarding the the relationships of, and the differences between, the US Constitution and individual State Constitutions, is a discussion in and of itself.

        • #2883458

          Maxwell, regarding the basis of the Constitution…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          The basis is surely the theory given in the Declaration of Independence (the U.S. Constitution itself does not give much theory), viz. God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, I have been told, was very nearly “property”). This puts liberty second to life and has all the rights coming from God. The state does not grant rights, it merely recognises them and secures them (or should). The authors of the Declaration included Deists, not just Christians of a variety of denominations, but they had in common enough to recognise God as the author of, inter alia, individual liberty. Now if these rights are aspects of human dignity, as at least one constitution (the German) says, then perhaps human dignity is indeed the basis of the freedoms enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

        • #2883451

          If human dignity was involved, reality TV would be unconstitutional…EOM

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          Dne fo egassem

        • #2883413

          john.a.wills – On the US Constitution

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          Re: [i]The basis is surely the theory given in the Declaration of Independence (the U.S. Constitution itself does not give much theory), viz. God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, I have been told, was very nearly “property”). This puts liberty second to life and has all the rights coming from God. The state does not grant rights, it merely recognizes them and secures them (or should). The authors of the Declaration included Deists, not just Christians of a variety of denominations, but they had in common enough to recognize God as the author of, inter alia, individual liberty. Now if these rights are aspects of human dignity, as at least one constitution (the German) says, then perhaps human dignity is indeed the basis of the freedoms enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. [/i]

          As you probably know, I’m a big-time Constitutionalist. I know, and agree with, what you said. An exception I might make, however, is that in the Constitution, the word “God” is not used. The word “Creator” is used instead. While in the eyes of Christians (and other faiths), God might be the Creator, in the eyes of others, “the Creator” does not always equal God. The “Creator”, as referenced in the US Constitution, is called, “Nature’s God”, in the Declaration.

          Point being, as you indicated, mortal man (or government) does not grant rights. They are instead naturally endowed upon a person by the “Creator”, regardless of how one might define “the Creator”. Government’s role is to secure and protect them. (But government has actually become the biggest violator of them!)

          I would love to have a discussion on the US Constitution. Maybe it would get some people around here to actually read it.

          My initial reply was regarding the “human dignity” thing – it’s pretty subjective. On the basis of “human dignity”, for example, one person might be vehemently opposed to something like euthanasia, while another person is in favor of it for the same “dignity” reasons. We don’t want government defining “human dignity”, do we?

        • #2883329

          Max, I think this is a great idea

          by av . ·

          In reply to In this particular context, there is an important point

          As you mentioned in your post:

          “I would love to have a discussion on the US Constitution. Maybe it would get some people around here to actually read it.”

          Something to consider . . .

          AV

      • #2885031

        Interesting.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Homophobia is like Racism and Sexism

        “‘Racism’ should be maintained so that ‘we can fight it’.”

        I guess that mean small pox should be maintained so doctors can learn how to treat it.

        • #2885018

          Well there ARE many computer viruses

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Interesting.

          And we really do not know who created them. If they were all eliminated, the companies like McAfee and Symantec would go out of business.

        • #2885017

          I don’t think they create viruses

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Well there ARE many computer viruses

          I do think McAfee and Symantec have great PR people who keep the fear of virus industry running at a fever pitch. Rarely do we get hit as hard with attacks as predicted.

    • #2885069

      On an unrelated tangent, where can I learn “Presidential English”?

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      It bothers me, as I translate to and from English, that there’s this dialect of English, spoken now by at least two presidents, and by a number of corporate CEOs as well, which seems to do its best to communicate as little as possible, while using the first person pronouns often as possible – I am not sure about the latter, I haven’t been able to study the phenomenon as much as required, because it numbs the brain, even with minor exposure.
      I could understand it if it were an objective-bias speech; one where the speaker goes out of the speaker’s way to underline which parts of speech are statements of perceived fact, and which are statements of personally held opinion… there would be some merit to that, I feel. In stead I see this “I can definitely say that we can now clearly state that it is my stated opinion that fire burns!”
      I first thought it was all just a Dubya idiolect (that term does not [always] mean idiot’s dialect, but rather idiosyncratic speech pattern), but now I see it everywhere.

      • #2885056

        It is a major area of study in PR land

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to On an unrelated tangent, where can I learn “Presidential English”?

        The president of the US, or a CEO, has a number of roles.

        The President of the US, for example, is the leader of the government, the most important member of his partisan political party, the head of the armed forces, a husband/wife, father/mother etc. Through his speech and his tone, he has to be clear who is speaking for, himself, his government, his country,his military, his family, his political party.

        • #2885024

          Yeah, I would be able to grok that…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to It is a major area of study in PR land

          But look at the example given above: “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think X”… merely separating I-as-a-person and I-as-the-figurehead-of-Y would have been satisfied by “I have come to the conclusion that X”, or the much shorter “I now feel that X”.
          So I think there’s something else going on.
          You could be on to something though – it would be fun at least to interpret the different 1.person references as referring to [i]different[/i] aspects of the presidential person: The first can be the human person, the second can be the leader of the administration, the third can be the representative of party leadership and the last can be the Commander In Chief…
          Compare, if they were different people: “I’ve just concluded that for John, personally it is important for Bob to go ahead and affirm that Jaqueline thinks X” :^0 Schizophrenia, the game of Kings!

      • #2885029

        Surely you’ve read ‘1984’?

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to On an unrelated tangent, where can I learn “Presidential English”?

        They’re trying to sound impressive while saying as little of substance as possible. Common US English descriptions include ‘smoke and mirrors’ and ‘house of cards’. Don’t you have the joke about how to tell when a politician is lying?

        • #2885022

          Lemme think…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Surely you’ve read ‘1984’?

          They’re lying if what they say seems to have some kind of concrete content? :^0

          Or is it if their lips are moving?

    • #2885064

      Americans are still on about this crap?

      by slayer_ ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      It’s just gay marriage, get over it.

      Why not tackle a real issue like universal healthcare or the massive national debt.

      • #2885045

        Here’s an idea.

        by jfuller05 ·

        In reply to Americans are still on about this crap?

        He probably went ahead and defined his position on same-sex marriage because he can’t run on his economic record. So, instead of running on his economic record, he will try and run on a social record.

        I’ve been trying to figure out why he “all of a sudden” publicly announced his same-sex marriage position and that is the best I can come up with. The other idea I have is that his “gay” donors were going to withdraw funds to his campaign if he didn’t publicly advocate same-sex marriage.

        I’m definitely willing to say I could be wrong on either idea, but those seem to be the most likely reasons.

        • #2885041

          I will tell you why….

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Here’s an idea.

          And I have worked for politicians, and still count many as friends….

          …cause Joe Biden made an ooopsie….

          Obama was sitting back, not seeing an advantange in stating a position, or struggling with the legal implications.

          Then Biden comments. When your VP brings his opinions to the national media, suddenly the national medium thinks, “if the VP thinks this way, what does the President think. If the VP is “brave” enough to say it, then why isn’t the president.” Suddenly the president found himself behind the issue, and it wasn’t pretty. He had to declare or be tarred with the indecisive brush. Maybe he remembers Jimmy Carter, who was tarred with that same brush.

        • #2885021

          I think that sounds very plausible…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I will tell you why….

          of course, with these power struggles always going on between Ps and VPs, it’s also fully possible that Biden decided to excercise some power, either for moral reasons or for the rush it gives… or why not both?

        • #2884987

          A power struggle between Biden and Obama?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think that sounds very plausible…

          Not trying to be offensive, Ansu, but that’s almost laughable. I won’t deny that there are many of those types of things that might tend to give Biden some kind of power rush, but the Obama tingle that crawled up Chris Matthew’s leg in 2008 has a closely related cousin residing on Biden’s.

          Regarding the general speculation of a power struggle between Ps and VPs, it might sound nice in print or to say, but in reality? Actually, I can’t recall such a power struggle between a P and a VP in my entire adult lifetime.

          Is there an Obama / Biden power struggle? No way.

          Bush (43) / Cheney? Nope.

          Clinton / Gore? Maybe to a degree, but Al was pretty much a lap boy (lest he would have pounced on the Clinton sex scandals)

          Bush (41) / Quayle? Pause while I stop laughing.

          Still paused because of my laughing at the thought of a Dan Quayle power grab.

          Still paused because of my laughing at the thought of a Dan Quayle power grab.

          Reagan / Bush? Maybe initially, early in Reagan’s first term (since G HW Bush was Reagan’s major primary challenger), but not over the long term of Reagan’s two terms. G HW Bush was pretty much the silent guy in waiting at that point.

          Carter / Mondale? Not that I recall. Mondale was curiously silent during the debacle we call the Carter Administration.

          Nixon / (Pardon Me) Ford?
          Nixon / (Flip the Finger) Rockefeller?
          Nixon / (No Contest) Agnew?

          Not likely any of them were in a power struggle with [i]”Tricky Dick”[/i].

          Johnson/Humphrey? Now we’re going WAY back. But as I recall, Humphrey carried Johnson’s Social Programs Bucket.

          Kennedy/Johnson? BINGO! I might put this as the last, great, power struggle between a P and his VP. In fact, some conspiracy theorists actually believe that it was Johnson behind ………. well, never mind. I won’t go there.

          Disclaimer: My [i]”adult lifetime”[/i] has not had a span of as many years as my P / VP analysis. I was a mere lad when Kennedy was president.

        • #2883518

          Kennedy / Johnson

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to A power struggle between Biden and Obama?

          was the first one that came to my mind. The potential for a power struggle between them was aggravated by Johnson’s dislike of Kennedy’s Attorney General / brother, Bobby Kennedy. Johnson’s rough-and-tumble Texas background didn’t jibe with those of Kennedy’s ‘best and brightest’. Unlike more recent VPs, Johnson gave up significant power, stepping down from Senate majority leader for the comparatively impotent vice-presidency. That couldn’t have done much for his attitude. I sometime wonder why he made the career choice. I assume it was to use the VP office as a springboard, but certainly not in the way it eventually happened.

        • #2883484

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Kennedy / Johnson

          at least you/we hope not!
          That would put all conspiracy theories to shame, wouldn’t it?

        • #2883415

          And not to be a conspiracy theorist but…..

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Kennedy / Johnson

          Jackie O believed that Johnson was part of the plot to kill Kennedy and said so on recorded interview tapes she requested be kept secret until 50 years after her death.

          Johnson was the target of a huge investigation and he was likely to get dropped from the ticket in 64.

          “Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ???explosive??? recordings are set to reveal.

          The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband???s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

          She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald ??? long claimed to have been a lone assassin ??? merely part of a much larger conspiracy.

          Texas-born Mr Johnson, who served as the state???s governor and senator, completed Mr Kennedy???s term and went on to be elected president in his own right.

          The tapes were recorded with leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr within months of the assassination on November 22, 1963, and had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston.”

          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023418/Jackie-O-tapes-reveal-JFKs-affairs-believed-death.html#ixzz1uqrxw36I

        • #2883401

          The more I read about the whole issue

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Kennedy / Johnson

          The more it sounds like it’s true.

          There is this guy in Texas called Billy Sol Estes who must have been bad luck, because everybody he knew ended up dead, including the guy whose death was ruled a suicide (shot five times with his own hunting rifle), and three prosecution witnesses who died of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning.

          “On 3rd June, 1961, Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. County Sheriff Howard Stegall decreed that Marshall had committed suicide.”

          Johnson was being investigated and he was likely to be dropped from the ticket in 64, in lieu of Bobby Kennedy.

          If the allegations are true, Estes was Johnson’s hit-man. Seriously…..

        • #2883485

          Didn’t you know about the Quayle power grab?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to A power struggle between Biden and Obama?

          Ok, that’s understandable, as he was never able to formulate his intent as anything other than “I want a bigger potatoe”… which understandably received a smile and a pat on the head.

          But, to any president, the VP (reverse the roles for the Dubya/Cheney set) will represent a potential rival, someone to be watched like a hawk. VPs must have moments where they think, why am I here just twiddling my thumbs for four years? Especially when the Presidency isn’t going in a way that will help their chances in future elections.

          The VP does have this symbolic power, and since that symbolic power cannot be used except by railroading their bosses, their bosses will have to try and safeguard against that, usually by getting a lame horse as a running mate: Which is what your historical records also show.

          But you’re right, I wasn’t talking about an open power struggle, but about a more theoretical power struggle, and often it is one that is won pre-emptively, by way of getting a total dweeb for VP (again, reverse for Dubya/Cheney).
          Still, I do think all the presidents you mentioned will have had a moment of each day where they’ve felt a pang of fear about what their VP might do.

        • #2884988

          You’re mistaken, James, about . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I will tell you why….

          ….. Obama “following” Biden.

          Biden screwed up by spilling the politically calculated beans sooner than Obama wanted them spilled. This was a planned and calculated move, not an Obama reply to a Biden “oops” moment.

          The only “oops” was on Biden’s part by revealing the administration’s announcement sooner than planned.

        • #2884986

          I lean toward this view.

          by jfuller05 ·

          In reply to You’re mistaken, James, about . . . . . .

          I think it was a poor move on Obama’s part. He should have waited until after his win in november, provided he actually does win of course, instead of speaking out about it now. Of course, it may not have been a poor move, it could be that he was losing donors for not cementing a pro position for same-sex marriage. He may have been forced into speaking out sooner because of Biden or because of donors or maybe a combination of both?

        • #2884980

          What’s less important versus what’s more important

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I lean toward this view.

          It matters little what Barack Hussein Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) [i]”thinks”[/i] about gay marriages. What matters is the [i]”therefore what”[/i] question.

          What can (or what should) the federal government do if an individual state (or states) wants to either ban gay marriage or define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in their respective states constitution?

          Short of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment regarding the definition of “marriage” within the United States (or some other constitutionally allowed federal law), there’s not a lot the feds can do.

          And since Obama and his minions are not planning to advance a gay-friendly Constitutional Amendment regarding the definition of marriage, they are exploiting the issue purely for political expediency. Talking the talk is easy. But taking the walk, thats a different story all together.

          My message to Obama and the Democrats: Either advance the notion of a Constitutional Amendment that allows gay marriage within the United States, or STFU and quit dividing people.

          As a disclaimer, my position is just that. Either way, pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage (and I fall on neither side), advance your notion by way of a Constitutional Amendment, and just let those chips fall where they may.

          I get SO TIRED of people debating questions or issues, with nary a thought of the right and proper way to address them. In this case, that’s a Constitutional Amendment, whether it be U.S. or State Constitution.

          But, that’s the [i]sport[/i] of politics.

        • #2883505

          There’s already an amendment that covers it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to What’s less important versus what’s more important

          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          It’s taken us over a century to even get close to the precepts in that statement with regard to skin color. Will it take another century to do the same with respect to sexual orientation?

        • #2883478

          “…the equal protection of the laws.”

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to What’s less important versus what’s more important

          That does sound like language to make the case, after all, any argument before the Supreme Court that marriage (as defined by a state!) must/can be about anything else than “the equal protection [of property rights as described by] the laws” would be quite hard to substantiate.
          Possession is nine tenths of the law, also of any law defining marriage.

        • #2883381

          Nick – On “Equality under the law”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What’s less important versus what’s more important

          You’re misreading the article. To apply your interpretation (in this case), you’d have to also allow a brother and sister who wish to wed the same “equality under the law”.

          “Equality under the law” implies that all laws are applied equally across the population. Moreover, marriage is not a “law”.

          For the record, here’s my take on the issue:

          It’s not my issue. I don’t care one way or the other. But I don’t see anyone’s rights being infringed upon.

          Having said that, I don’t like tax laws that favor married people over single people, that favor one group over another group, etc. I don’t like any law that treats different people differently. But marriage is not a law. If laws (taxes, etc.) favor married people over single people, then it’s the law (or tax rules) that should be changed, not the definition of what has been marriage for eons. It’s stupid to change the definition of words and institutions, or to make defined institutions more inclusive, just to accommodate a law. If that’s what’s necessary for fairness, then it’s the law, itself, that’s unfair; and it’s the law, itself, that should be changed or repealed.

          I do believe that a ???legal??? marriage and a ???sacred??? marriage are as different as black and white. One does not necessarily make and/or equal the other. And although I’m not crazy about government even being involved in marriage at all, I do see a need for such a thing; as such I have no problem with state government defining parameters for what may or may not constitute a marriage. I have no problem with the federal government getting involved to the extent of keeping respective state government laws applicable with each other across state lines. (As long as the federal government involves itself in a constitutionally consistent manner – i.e. a constitutional amendment, one way or the other.)

          But if a state is violating individual rights by disallowing same gender couples to marry, then that same state is also violating the individual rights of a blood-related brother and sister who want to legally marry; and that same state is also violating the individual rights of a threesome who wants to legally marry; or a foursome who wants to legally marry; etc.

          Individual rights are not automatically violated just because one person can legally do something that another person cannot legally do. Are a fifteen year old’s right being violated because he can’t get a driver???s license? No. Are my individual rights being violated because I can’t join a women’s only health club? No. Is a gay guy’s rights being violated if he can’t “marry” another guy? No.

          The definition of “rights” often gets skewed.

        • #2883371

          Marriage is indeed not a law

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to What’s less important versus what’s more important

          But the protections and benefits granted to married couples are not integral to this “marriage”, either. These are protections written to law.

        • #2884985

          Of course Max

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to You’re mistaken, James, about . . . . . .

          We are both espousing theories, and I doubt we will ever be able to prove either of them. Even if someone writes a memoir a few years down the road, their view will not necessarily reflect reality.

          Equally plausible was that Biden was releasing a trial balloon, and polling after Biden’s statement gave Obama the courage to make his statement.

          What I do know is that making the statement won’t net out in a gain of votes for the Democrats.

        • #2884979

          Except that my “theory” has support

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Of course Max

        • #2883477

          Of course… that could be what they want you to believe…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Except that my “theory” has support

          Just playing devil’s advocate; if Biden’s statement HAD forced Barack Hussein Obama [b][i]II[/b][/i] to make up his mind about whether to declare or not, then it would be highly embarrassing, and a public statement about how this wasn’t the case, but rather one of “timetable misunderstanding” would be [i]excellent[/i] damage control…

    • #2885057

      Too late for genius

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      I am somewhat ambivalent on Obama’s action, truth be told.

      He is late to the party as it were. His VP’s comments about the NC vote probably prodded him into action, but as a President, he has a duty to lead, not follow.

      I can understand that he may have struggled with the issue. But it was an active issue in many states before now, and he should have come to grips with it one way or another. I did state on a FB post that he did have to consider the implications, not from an electoral perspective, but a consitutional one. But upon reflection, he could have started the process of consulting with constitutional experts some time ago.

      But sometimes you have to applaud the act, late or not. Like someone who has a commonlaw relationship for years, and then gets married. (Been there, done that, got the T shirt, burned it).

      • #2885020

        It was a wise move

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to Too late for genius

        It was a gift to energize his base in an election year.

        Enough of trying to reach across the aisle and lose fingers, just show some leadership, dang it, and make some decisions already. It was a move that shows confidence and leadership.

        There was no panic in the streets with DADT was repealed.

        Obama could cure cancer and the GOP would blast him for taking jobs away from doctors.

        He could walk on water, and the GOP would blast him for doing something beneath the dignity of the president “look at him, out there dancing around on the water while Americans are without jobs”.

        Personally, this is an issue that does not affect me or impact me at all. If people of the same sex want to experience the soul-destroying thing called marriage, more power to them.

        With the election six months away, it was wise to get in front of this issue, handle it, and thus it goes away. What, like there were scores of conservative Christians who WERE going to vote for Obama who are now offended….yeah right.

        It’s not really an issue the GOP can go ballistic on, since going against it alienates the very voters they need, and again, Obama can do nothing right in their book in any case.

      • #2883461

        Obama did step up to the plate

        by av . ·

        In reply to Too late for genius

        It was an inopportune time for him to address this issue during the presidential campaign, but there was no BS on his part. I like that about Obama. The US is backwards on this issue and in denial. There are so many gay people out there and privately they are accepted, yet the evangelicals in this country won’t accept it publicly. It is a total farce.

        I think Obama did a good thing by stating his honest opinion, but when I look at Mitt Romney and listen to him talk about how he doesn’t support marriage equality, I see a man that is either lying or hasn’t kept up with the times or maybe someone who is just playing to the conservative base of people that don’t like the idea of marriage equality.

        I can relate. I lived in sin for fifteen years and then got married. I’m still married though, I survived.

        AV

        • #2883406

          Timing

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Obama did step up to the plate

          I can’t honestly tell you if Obama recently came to his position, or whether he came to it some time ago. But the opportune time for the president to chime in was as the first states started to pass these anti-same sex marriage resolutions, not after many of them had already been passed. If he hadn’t come to a decision at that point, he should have dove in and come to it. That would have been leadership.

        • #2883331

          He supposedly didn’t support it in the past

          by av . ·

          In reply to Timing

          From Wikipedia:

          “In January 2009, it was reported that Obama opposed a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, and also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act,[58] stating that individual states should decide the issue.[59][60] Obama opposed Proposition 8 ??? California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage ??? in 2008.[61] In December 2010, the White House website stated that the president supported full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.”[57] He also stated that his position on same-sex marriage was “evolving” and that he recognized that civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples was “not enough”, before subsequently declaring his full support for the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2012″

          I don’t think he really wanted to pursue this issue right now. Some people say he is using the issue to distract from his poor record on the economy/job creation. If he is, he made a poor choice because this country is not ready to accept gay marriage and the number one issue on voters minds is the state of the economy and job creation.

          AV

    • #2883462

      i dont think state and religion should be mixed

      by markp24 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      I personally feel in the USA, we have freedoms, and if your religion or non religious belief allows you to marry (fill in anything here) that’s fine with me, who am i to tell you what to do.
      But i do feel the government had s no right stating what is marriage and what is not. The constitution clearly state separation of church (ie religion) and state (ie government) will not.
      If this is all for tax advantages, well I disagree with Tax favoritism based on marriage status, religion, race, social status, etc)

      • #2883453

        It’s all about joint ownership protection

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to i dont think state and religion should be mixed

        But …also about some other benefits, like being allowed to decide if the hospital can stop keeping a person alive who will no longer come to. Imagine living with someone for 30 years, sharing joys and griefs, but when it comes to allowing them a dignified end, you have to pin your hopes on the other person’s estranged parents who hate you.
        Also about life insurance benefits, as well as the right to stay in a co-owned property even if the other partner had heirs (otherwise those heirs have the right to demand that the shared home is sold).

        Actually, IT IS THE CHURCH WHICH HAS NO RIGHT TO STATE WHAT MARRIAGE IS AND IS NOT, SINCE MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ARTIFACT!

        • #2883435

          thank you , i was not aware of that part of the deal

          by markp24 ·

          In reply to It’s all about joint ownership protection

          Interesting information, i was unaware of the nitty gritty stuff that legal system has going on. but thank you for noting that, im always learning something new.

    • #2883459

      One of the issues I have a problem with

      by av . ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      If I was a gay person and my partner was seriously ill, I would not be able to see him or do anything to help him because I’m not next of kin or part of his immediate family. Thats pretty devastating to me and I think to most people in that situation.

      Denying marriage equality denies gay people the rights to be with their loved ones when its most important.

      AV

    • #2883452

      Did y’all notice that unread messages now have a bolded title link?

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      Neat! When did that happen? Better than the NEW flag, I think.
      Does it work for the all-expanded viewing too? (I use the collapsed view, so I dunno)

    • #2883427

      Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Is A Sickness

      by zaeem2349 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      When people minds get drifted away from their real purpose and value they get sick and the devil rules. That’s what’s happening to you guys. It’s a shame and disgusting that even the leader he himself accepted the fact that he also will go with the infected rather than trying to get them the cure they need.
      When the communities become close to be destroyed they walk the foot steps of the devil. It’s likely your destruction is approaching.
      It’s my advice for those who reject this, to stand up against these sickened ass****.

      • #2883424

        The devil? You mean you doubt the omnipotence of GOD?!?

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Is A Sickness

        Ok, guys, stone this mofo!

      • #2883421

        “real purpose and value”

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Is A Sickness

        And those would be?

        We’re talking about a legal and civil rights issue. There is no legal precedence or position for taking ‘the devil’ into account in making or enforcing US law.

      • #2883404

        The Devil has no feet

        by robo_dev ·

        In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Is A Sickness

        Therefore, we cannot walk in his (or her) footsteps. Nor do we know if the devil, exists or can even walk.

        Logically if there is some sentient being with the capability of exerting evil influence over all humanity for all time, he (or she) would not be burdened with walking, and of course what sort of shoes (if such shoes were required) would such a being need to wear if we believe the religious types whose vision of the netherworld involves fire and brimstone.

        • #2883370

          That guy is part of the huge satanist cabal that has infiltrated the Church

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The Devil has no feet

          They have this heretical and pagan viewpoint that there is an entity, the “Devil” or “Satan”, equal to God, yet evil. They don’t openly worship this entity, though some of their practices do betray their hidden devotions.

          Fun, isn’t it? The infiltration was cunningly achieved and dates back to before John of the Revelations, although it was John of the Revelations who actually put the core satanist teachings into writing, as texts that would later be incorporated into Bible, when they compiled it.

      • #2883395

        Somebody has obviously never read

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples Is A Sickness

        The Sermon on the Mount.

    • #2883426

      Recreational Sex is more common than you’d think

      by snak ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      Sex, claim some of the posters here, is for procreation only. What utter rubbish. I wonder if that religiously-imposed ‘ideal’ is the cause of so much grief. At the latest count, there are no less than 451 species that indulge in non-procreatory sex, whether same-sex couplings or not. So Don’t think that sex for fun is a merely human thing. It aint sick, it aint wrong; it’s quite normal in the animal kingdom – and we’re not so far removed from that as many people seem to think.

      • #2883420

        The other side of that same coin

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Recreational Sex is more common than you’d think

        implies that a marriage, even religiously sanctioned one, is also only for procreation. This raises the question why those beyond reproductive age are allowed church weddings.

        I’m with you; utter rubbish.

      • #2883360
        Avatar photo

        Not according to the Roman Church

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Recreational Sex is more common than you’d think

        After all they where the ones who actively discouraged the Original Sin from happening as often as people wanted to. They tried very hard to push the [b]Procreation Only[/b] message and even had a Big Industry in Castration until a Pope decided that removing the urge wasn’t the way to overcome the Sin.

        It’s Man who has messed with the [b]Natural Order[/b] of things and we are still suffering as a result. 😉

        Col

        • #2883320

          Natural Order

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Not according to the Roman Church

          Which includes what we are calling homosexual behaviour. It’s relatively common in a range of different animals including many apes and monkeys.

    • #2883417

      The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years,,,,

      by thesteelgeneral ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      … is the opposition against Marriage Equality.
      Because, there can be no harm shown to be done by this. In other words, if two girls get married in Vermont, there won’t be Opposite SEx marriages dissolving around the country. (If they are, they where pisspoor marriages to begin with).

      So, where does this huge opposition come from? IMHO, it’s just rightwing activist-politicking: many rightwing politicians don’t give a rats …. either way, but they see it as a huge stick to beat Obama with. ” Aaaargh! the Black man wants to kill your marriage!” The fact that many rightwing pundits don’t see the huge logical misthunk in this, says a lot about their capacities: they’re not there.

      Polygamy, otoh, has shown to cause harm to girls, older women and the young men that were driven away from those ‘communities’ (cults or prison more like it)

      Let’s not even go to pedophilia or bestiality, to which ssm is said to be a steppingstone, by its opponents. HUGE harm done, and no legal consent can be given.

      Ya gotta love the kneejerk reaction by Foks and R. Limp….s, which was:
      “Obama has declared war on Opposite Sex Marriage!!”
      Sure.
      Because….. when you like apples, you must HATE HATE HATE oranges, right?

      • #2883414

        Quibble.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years,,,,

        Opposition to same sex marriages in the US has been an issue long before the Obama administration. I agree there are those using this issue to divert attention from real issues, but it’s been going on here since long before Obama got into politics.

        I too do not understand how this can harm or damage the marriages of others. The only people who can damage a marriage are the people in it. It’s not like heterosexuals have done the institution much good in the US anyway, with a 50% divorce rate.

      • #2883410

        The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years,,,,

        ….. is the opposition against Marriage Equality?

        Really? Out of all the weird things over the past 50 years, that’s really the weirdest?

        I would think that there were things more weird than that. Lots of them. Like this global obsession and belief in the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind – anthropogenic global warming / climate change.

        • #2883409

          Yeah, I overlooked that.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years . . . . .

          I’d have to say pet rocks, or unreality TV, or Jim and Tammy Bakker.

        • #2883408

          Another dissicussion in and of itself . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Yeah, I overlooked that.

          What’s the [i]weirdest[/i] thing over the past 50 years? Discuss.

          I’d say a strong contender would be the case in which a guy became a woman, his wife became a man, and they stayed married to each other (or remarried each other), but with the husband & wife titles reversed.

          P.S. What if they would have stayed married to each other, but only one of them had the sex change? And what if they lived in a state in which same gender marriage was illegal?

        • #2883403

          The Internet?

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to Another dissicussion in and of itself . . . . . .

          Consider that in 1962, the chance of this conversation happening would be nil.

          This forum would only consist of like-minded people a the corner bar drinking whiskey and beer.

          Information came from one of three broadcast TV stations, a handful of broadcast radio stations, and a newspaper which often had a morning and afternoon edition.

          When you wanted to learn something about something, you went to a bookshelf of encyclopedias sold by a door-to-door salesman, or went flipping through typewritten card-catalog cards at the local library for a book on a particular subject.

          Today if I want to know the most arcane technical detail, I do a google search on my smartphone and it’s there in about two seconds,

          I then use the amazon or ebay app on my smartphone and buy a product from anywhere in the world and have it delivered cheaply.

          And, while this forum might be more lively if everybody here was roaring drunk, since I am at the office, my employer would frown on that…..

        • #2883369

          +1

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to The weirdest western phenomenon in the last 50 years . . . . .

          :^0

    • #2883398

      Feeling Sympathy For Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage

      by zaeem2349 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      A few decades ago or before 1930 no body had even thought of same sex marriages. But to day we can see majority are supporting this.
      This really is disastrous. US or any other country the law they make and try to enforce should not conflict with the law of God or the laws of highest authority.
      To day if some one says I want marry my mum or my daughter every body will say kill that bast***. However as I have said earlier if the sick are not treated, may be with in a couple of decades some will be voicing to get their rights to marry their daughters or mothers.
      I feel sympathy for those who are support same sex marriage.

      • #2883393

        The law of highest authority in the United States

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Feeling Sympathy For Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage

        is the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment of which states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

        Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, green, purple, straight, gay, bi, or undecided, you cannot be denied life, liberty, property, or [u]equality[/u] under the law. We can’t even use stupidity to deny equality under the law.

      • #2883389

        “the law of God”

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Feeling Sympathy For Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage

        “US or any other country the law they make and try to enforce should not conflict with the law of God or the laws of highest authority.”

        Which laws of which god? Why does your god get precedence over another person’s god, or my lack of one?

        • #2883375

          God is one and is for all

          by zaeem2349 ·

          In reply to “the law of God”

          Hi Paletto,
          When I say God I am referring the one and only God. So my belief is that God is one and He is the God of the whole humanity.
          Your God and mine are same no precedence.

        • #2883368

          So it’s that guy in the sky who gives everybody CANCER!!!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to God is one and is for all

          I friggin’ hate that guy. I say we do the exact opposite of what He says :^0

          Have you seen “Inventing Lying”? I thought it was funny.

        • #2883357

          Belief?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to God is one and is for all

          What does belief have to do with civil law? Unsubstantiated beliefs have no place in the making of civil law because different sets of belief often conflict with one another.

        • #2883235

          But what if my god is like a USB port or something?

          by robo_dev ·

          In reply to God is one and is for all

          Can you prove or disprove that the interface port on my computer is in-fact controlling the entire universe? (might explain why it lags at times)

          And there is the practical issue that you do not know the ‘law of God’ nor do I, nor can anyone prove or disprove whether what you or I SAY is (or is not) the law of god is (or is not) true.

          Thus the ‘law of God’ is an abstract concept, and as such, can be quite literally anything.

          The laws that people create are, at times, what they THINK God wants, but they have no way of knowing what God wants or does not want.

          Thus in certain cultures, men believe that God wants them to stone to death any woman guilty of adultery, but here we call that murder. Men use God as an excuse to justify what they believe to be right, or as an excuse to do what they want to do, no more.

      • #2883384

        Alas, zaeem2349, you are mistaken.

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to Feeling Sympathy For Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage

        “before 1930 no body had even thought of same sex marriages”. In the first Xn Century the Roman Emperor Nero went through a same-sex “marriage” and “consummated” it publicly. Tacitus records this in his Annals. The clergy were most humiliated, not having the guts to refuse to solemnize the union; meanwhile Xn were being thrown to the lions for refusing to burn incense before the Emperor’s image.
        You may also be wrong in stating that the majority [of the U.S. people] support same-sex “marriage”: every U. S. state which has had a plebiscite on the issue has rejected the idea.
        Besides that, I would like for clarity to know who you think are sick. Do you concentrate on the psychological sickness of sexual inversion or on the moral sickness of mutual masturbation?

        • #2883376

          Thanks for clarification

          by zaeem2349 ·

          In reply to Alas, zaeem2349, you are mistaken.

          John, like your style of responding so thanks for the clarification.
          I know that it was the nation of Lot who started the tradition of homosexuality. I am sure if you are christian you know what happen to them. I am actually referring to recent history.
          It is both psychological and moral.
          Thanks

        • #2883296

          Sodomites

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Thanks for clarification

          Homosexuality is an improper concept, as I showed somewhere above (I go into greater analytic detail in my book Albatross), but I suppose you mean that the ancient Sodomites commonly practised same-sex mutual masturbation. This is quite a common idea, but Ez 16:49-50 tells us that the sin for which Sodom was destroyed was something else, something like libertarianism or objectivism. How the Sodomites got the reputation of being rapist gays I do not know. But we do know from elsewhere in the OT that gayness cropped up a long time ago.

          Anyway, you believe that sexual inversion of the erotic instincts is a psychological disorder while mutual masturbation is a sin. I suggest to you that mutual masturbation is a greater sin if the participants are of different sexes, because there they have the option of copulation, which sexual inverts do not.

        • #2883295

          the real funny aspect of sodomy is the dual standards shown

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Sodomites

          many people see a guy having anal sex with a guy as wrong yet a guy having anal sex with a female is OK – yet it’s the very same act. Now that’s a serious double standard.

          And, NO, I am not going to get into an argument about if either is right or wrong – I’m just pointing out the double standard of many who see it differently based on the genders involved.

        • #2883255

          I agree with Deadly Ernest on this

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to the real funny aspect of sodomy is the dual standards shown

          Except that buggary must be a greater sin if the participants have the option of copulation. The State of Texas once had a law criminalizing all buggary, but then homophobically changed it to criminalize only male-male buggary. The federal courts ruled this change unconstitutional and made homosexualist remarks in so doing, so homosexualism here feeds on homophobia (the reverse also happens).

        • #2435289

          There’s ‘sin’ again.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I agree with Deadly Ernest on this

          What does one religion’s concept of ‘sin’ have to do with civil law?

        • #2883212

          Interesting fact:

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Sodomites

          In Danish “sodomi” isn’t anal sex, but rather sex with animals, so it’s clear that nobody knows what the poor sods did, and God got away with his possibly unprovoked genocide scott free. He’s probably amused to no end at the lengths we go to to justify and rationalize his murderous whim.

        • #2883222

          Going back over this I realised I only dealt with half of it before

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Thanks for clarification

          Homosexuality is when a person engages in sexual activity with someone of the same gender. But the actual acts are those that many heterosexuals behave in as well.

          Male homosexuals engage in oral sex and anal sex, while female homosexuals engage in oral sex and the use of hands on the genitals. ALL these activities are also performed by many heterosexual couples.

          Now the real oddity is many people get the knickers twisted about the idea of two guys getting together in this way but accept it’s OK for two girls to get together like this, and it’s perfectly natural for mixed couples to get together like this. T’is a real wonder and example of conditioning, I think.

        • #2883367

          Typo

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Alas, zaeem2349, you are mistaken.

          Only one “n” in “anals” :p

      • #2437681

        I had been trying hard not to reply to this, but I’m feeling weak right now

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Feeling Sympathy For Those Who Support Same Sex Marriage

        quote
        This really is disastrous. US or any other country the law they make and try to enforce should not conflict with the law of God or the laws of highest authority.
        end quote

        I won’t get into what or who anyone regards as the highest authority, beyond saying the highest civil authority is that of the highest judicial element of that country be it a court or a member of royalty etc.

        Now as to the ‘Law of God’ – assuming you are referring to some one who is a follower of either the Hebrew, Muslim, or Christian faiths (all of which follow the teachings of Abraham) then you have a statement that those who follow that teaching are NOT to engage in same sex physical relationships. Now there are a few important aspects of this that needs to be kept in mind:

        1. If the people involved are NOT of one of the faiths that oppose same sex physical relationships, then there is nothing in their understand of God’s laws to stop them – end of story.

        2. If you follow any of the religious faiths mentioned above, then you know that the scriptures of all three include the teachings that God gave the each and every person on Earth the RIGHT of free will and freedom of choice to follow God’s rules and teachings. Thus any true believer of any of those faiths KNOWS they have NO scripturally based rights to interfere in how someone else exercises their God given free agency.

        3. At the time the teachings about NO same sex physical relationships were handed down the act of conducting and sanctifying marriage was a purely social / civil activity and nothing to do with God, the priests, or the scriptures. It was thousands of years more before the churches got involved in marriages and it wasn’t as part of the directions given by God or any of God’s prophets. The laws of Moses had many laws on how to behave in regards to others, including how to treat spouses and how to have a divorce, but not on how to perform a marriage.

        I strongly believe the answer on this issue is purely civil and up to the individuals concerned, or, at the most, up to each local community to have a say on if they accept it or not.

    • #2883351

      A couple of points to keep in mind here

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      G’day All,

      First a few historic points:

      1. Marriage as a civil joining of couples into households was around before the Holy Catholic Church (ie the entire Christian Church of the day) started organising formal religious ceremonies about it. It was known as marriage before then, and still is.

      So the Christian churches do NOT have an ownership on the word, nor do any other churches.

      2. Current marriage laws in most western societies were originally based on the church rules about marriage introduce during the middle ages. Thus the current restrictions are all religious based.

      3. With any government approving same sex marriages they open the door wide for the approval of multi-spousal marriages as well. So you can expect that to be on the agenda very soon after same sex marriage is legalised and being pushed by the Muslim community.

      4. Civil marriage and religious marriage do need to be split apart and made as two separate activities, the way they are in some European countries. Thus a wedding is held before a civil celebrant and then another in the church of your choice, if you want a church wedding. This will resolve 95% of the community argument on the issue.

      A big concern I see is the legalising of same sex marriage will see some people wanting one approaching churches about having a same sex church wedding and then suing the church when they get refused. If the two are disassociated from each other then this problem won’t occur. I do know of some places where ministers of religion who were also approved civil celebrants resigned as civil celebrants when they heard of the possibility of their local state government approving same sex marriage as the existing laws would have seen them liable for charges of discrimination if they refused to marry a same sex couple. By ceasing to be a civil celebrant the changes in the civilian marriage laws no longer had any application to them and they could continue to apply their religious teachings to the religious services without any legal trouble. Sadly this is NOT the way the laws would work in all legal jurisdictions unless the laws actively split the two apart.

      5. One big shock for many people will be the fact that there is NO Christian scriptural support for monogamous marriage (ie one spouse) for the general population. This was something introduced by a Pope in the middle ages for reasons of creating more power over the general population. The only reference for one spouse comes from 1 Timothy chapter 3 verse 2: ‘A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.’

      Mind you verses 4 and 5 say: ‘One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

      (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)’

      Later verses in the chapter say similar things about those seeking to be a deacon in the church.

      Other scriptures, mostly in the Old Testament give laws on and discuss the proper way to treat multiple wives, and there are many cases of people who could afford the care of multiple wives having them. It’s these same scriptures transferred into the Quran that support the multiple wife aspect of Muslim teachings.

      Thus, the Christian churches have no scriptural support for stopping multi-spousal marriage.
      ………………..

      The government should change the marriage laws to have the civil marriage as legal contract between any types or groups of people and the only restrictions should be requirements for the welfare of any and all children, the care and conservation of property of the group, and the need for all those in the marriage to approve the introduction of a new member or it can’t happen. Anything else is basically a union of church and state in regards to them marriage laws.

      Regards

      Ernest

      Please don’t throw too many other cats in the pigeon coop.

      • #2883343

        Good points all… and long time no see!

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to A couple of points to keep in mind here

        The whole point of the Christian wedding was to gain control over the nobility and royalty : No church blessing = no legal heir = end of dynasty.

        Very simple, really.

        • #2883342

          ayep, – a power play by the pope of the day

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Good points all… and long time no see!

          that’s all it was, then. Now it’s used to continue to control the population and keep them under the thumb of the church hierarchy.

      • #2883330

        historical reference requested

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to A couple of points to keep in mind here

        Who was the Pope in the Middle Ages who made monogamy the rule? And how would it give him power? Moslem Muftis seem to me to have enjoyed more power in the Middle Ages than Xn bishops, although perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary.

        • #2883322

          Here’s the quick and easy answer for you

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to historical reference requested

          You can also follow up the references from the articles in your local library or elsewhere, if you want. Wiki page link is followed by relevant quotes. The first definitive Papal Bull on marriage was approved by Pope Pius IV as one of the outcomes of the Council of Trent in November 1563. Despite attempts by some bishops to make marriage a religious ceremony as early as 110CE it was not made that way in the Christian church for many centuries. Although marriage is mentioned in some earlier councils, the first mention of any church procedures on marriage is in the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1213. Prior references include the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD where priests and nuns are forbidden to marry (a civil action at that time, not a church one) and the First Council of Lateran in 1123 where blood relatives are forbidden to be married. The majority of stuff coming out of councils and canons prior to Canon 50 of 1213 Ad dealt with matters of political power for the church, with a few on religious definitions etc.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran

          Canons 50-52: On marriage, impediments of relationship, publication of banns.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

          From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.[51] However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, “It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.”[52]

          With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[54][55] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[56]

          in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, “The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.”[65]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent

          In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed (see also clerical celibacy), concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnessesalthough the lack of a requirement for parental consent ended a debate that had proceeded from the 12th century. In the case of a divorce, the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party is alive, even if the other may have committed adultery.

          That should answer your question on where the marriage laws come from.

          By controlling when and how the kings and other secular leaders could marry and what was a legal marriage the Church leaders controlled who could and couldn’t inherit property and positions of power, thus giving the church more power and authority.

          Check out this article and look at what the Papal bulls gave authority of

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bulls_by_year

          The Pope assigned ownership of whole countries and lands, amongst many other things. Most are political and power matters. If you do a lot more research in major libraries you’ll find a hell fo a lot more, but I’ll let you do your own now you know where to look.

          Ernest

        • #2883298

          the critical word is perhaps “reaffirmed”

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Here’s the quick and easy answer for you

          What you are quoting is codification, not origination. If you read Mt 19:9 intelligently you will realize that Jesus was assuming that his hearers rejected polygamy. That is 15 centuries or so before the bull you refer to. Clearly then the ancestral Jewish church thought monogamy the rule, despite a history including Solomon, David, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.

        • #2883292

          you have an odd interpretation of Matt 19:9, but

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to the critical word is perhaps “reaffirmed”

          like any scripture it has to be read in light of the surrounding verses. You also assume these verses support monogamy, when the actual text does NOT say that. Go back and re-read Matthew 19 from verse 5 and you find Jesus is replying to a question about putting a wife away, in verse 8 he also uses the term wives. In the reply Jesus speaks about how wrong it is to keep a wife solely for the purpose of sex Matt 19:5-12

          Oh, and don’t forget, Jesus was a Jew speaking on the Jewish faith and laws.

          And don’t forget this was originally written in Greek and there are several ways to interpret much of what’s in there, based on how you want it to read.

          And before you ask, yes, I am a Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, I just don’t follow the way many of his teachings have been warped and misrepresented by various men in positions of power over the centuries.

          Oh, nearly forgot – I said reaffirm as the first actual mention of Holy Catholic position on marriage is in the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1213 (as stated above) as Canon law 50 setting when the Church will approve a marriage or divorce. From what I’ve found out so far, I can’t be sure if that Canon sees marriage as a Church rite or a case of Church approval of the civil situation.

        • #2883253

          I have a literal interpretation of Mt 19

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to you have an odd interpretation of Matt 19:9, but

          and I have struggled through the Greek of verse 9.

        • #2883223

          That’s an interesting response because the Hebrew faith

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I have a literal interpretation of Mt 19

          at that time did not regard monogamy as the basic marriage situation and their laws on dealing with later wives were very extensive.

          However, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this item.

    • #2883347

      testing

      by aaron.cirilo ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      123

    • #2437027

      good or bad

      by kevin888 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      its everyone’s choice, i think this is really an hot topic to discuss with people and try to know what they think about this,,

    • #2437789

      Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

      by mary1010 ·

      In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples – Wow

      Any person regardless of sexual preference has every right to seek out happiness, whether that happiness is found in someone of the same gender, a different gender, being alone. To deny someone that right because they are different from you is closed- minded. It is like interracial marriages- they were considered as wrong by older generations but now when they happen they are perfectly acceptable. It is all an evolutionary change, changes happen and you can either accept them or fight them and make life harder for everyone.

      • #2437777

        That is homosexualism, Mary,

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

        which, as I show above, is intellectually equivalent to homophobia. And as for interracial marriage, I think you are a little mixed-up: inter-racial marriage has been forbidden in several cultures, but the ban is not pre-civilization, whereas the notion of marriage as a sexual, i.e. inter-sexual, community is as old as humanity. As for happiness, there is no move that I know of in the U.S. to prevent people of the same sex being happy together – think of the Promise Keepers. What is at stake is the supposed right to engage in simulated copulation a.k.a. mutual masturbation a.k.a. gross indecency – regardless of the sexes of the participants.

        • #2437725

          You are still incorrect

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to That is homosexualism, Mary,

          50-cent words and convoluted analysis aside, it is not about sexual activity. The push for gay marriage is about the denial of the full legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples, the opposition to which is based almost entirely on a single 4000-year old sentence.

        • #2437685

          That sounds familiar

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to You are still incorrect

          …by far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconception is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for them.
          James: Pragmatism lecture II

          Of course, I am bearing witness not for phenomena but for concepts.

        • #2437659

          Do you consider disagreement to be abuse?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to That sounds familiar

          That seems to be what your response implies.

          Your philosophical offering serves only to obfuscate the issue, which is not the morality of sexual behavior between individuals of the same gender (a religious issue), but the denial to same-sex couples in a committed relationship of the same benefits granted to married couples under current law (a civil rights issue).

          It is neither my place nor yours to determine the morality of consensual private behavior that causes no physical or economic harm to others.

        • #2437570

          No,

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Do you consider disagreement to be abuse?

          read what you wrote. And if you dislike philosophy (mine has here been mainly conceptual analysis), why are you making ethical judgements?

        • #2437533

          I don’t dislike philosophy

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to No,

          My philosophy tells me it’s wrong to judge the activities of others if those activities are consensual and cause no physical or economic harm to others.

          As I see it, you are attempting frame this subject as a condemnatory and judgmental moral discussion. This is based on the use of words and phrases with high negative connotations: sin; indecency; etc. This sentence is an excellent example: [i]What is at stake is the supposed right to engage in simulated copulation a.k.a. mutual masturbation a.k.a. gross indecency – regardless of the sexes of the participants.[/i]

          I just don’t consider the subject to be a philosophical issue in the manner in which you appear to be trying to frame it.

        • #2437682

          Mind you, Nick, at the time of the quote in the Bible against same sex

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to You are still incorrect

          relationships the act and function of marriage was a purely social and civil concept and nothing to do with the priests or the church at that time. Which makes it even harder for people to claim the church or the church rules should govern marriage.

Viewing 17 reply threads