Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately a proper delving into this subject is most likely way beyond the scope of this thread , which is why I won't attempt it here , but suffice to say that one can easily be a completely non religious agnostic ( as I am ) and still recognize that the moral foundations of Western Civilization as such wouldn't exist without the genius of the Christian faith .
The fact of the matter is that ( and correct me if I'm being presumptuous about your own religious stance ) even secular individuals like ourselves have been deeply inculcated with notions of morality that are ultimately Christian in origin .
Consider for instance the whole phenomenon of what we call natural law , a set of beliefs which is ultimately Christian in its current context , since the variety as expressed by f.ex Cicero was completely and utterly different to that of what we refer to as natural law now .
It is no accident that such practices as chivalry or noblesse oblige only came into existence after the rise of Christianity , nor is it an accident that all the numerous baleful features of modern society such as mass war , totalitarianism , consumerism , the wreckage of the traditional extended family structure , etc. , have all come about in the age of Christianity falling into retreat .
In short while the individual can indeed be non religious and moral , society as a whole cannot , which is why even non religious individuals would benefit greatly if a revival of Christianity were to take place .
I must also remark that your description of Christian morality as being wholly dependent on fear of divine punishment is quite misguided and also that all systems of morality can only last if they are imposed upon society as a whole in some way or another .
That is in going with your example , granting legal recognition to homosexual marriage is as much of an act of imposing the view that such marriages deserve legal recognition by the state upon society as a whole as is the act of doing the opposite , i.e. the argument of one side ( in this case the pro homosexual marriage camp ) being non imposing and the other being imposing is completely and utterly fallacious since all constructions relating to morality are inherently imposing .
Christian moral is not the same as Buddhist moral, not the same as Mormon faith moral, not the same as Jewish moral and not the same as Muslim moral. The 1st Amendmend to the Constitution says that no religion should be treated above any other. On top of that, anyone can start his own religion and its own set of practices.
So, in the end, you would need to select the most low level set of morals for government to enforce - as long as your morals don't really harm me (but not my morals!) they should be totally acceptable and protected by law.
As far as marriage going, it's a special form of business partnership, nothing else. And it should be treated as such - any number of person agree upfront what they want from this partnership, what rights they delegate to the partners in the partnership, who and how makes the decisions in this partnership, how and when it gets dissolved if any of the partners leave or are expelled (and for which causes). The government then can take a role of overseeing the rights of the children are met, ensure all parties are acting voluntarily and in good faith, monitor for domestic violence and become an arbiter if there is any disagreement about the contract terms.
_Right_now_ I see no real reason why I cannot make a legal contract with any person(s) and get most of the same protections as a marriage for any partner. Power of Attorney can grant access to common bank accounts, visitation rights, decisions regarding children, etc. Well, maybe some right won't be met, but I think a good legal framework can be constructed by some good lawyers to give same or nearly same protections as a married couple has.
Simple question. For this poll I am only adding yes or no as options. You either support it or you don't.
Constitutionally, any type of marriage should be left to the states. The federal government is not empowered to interject. Personally, I support the individual's decision as it does not intrude on my rights in any way.
Government should get out of the marriage business. If two or more people want to enter a contract to share personal items, then so be it.
Before Texas was forced to allow same sex marriage, there was a divorce case between two women who had been married outside of Texas. The pearl clutching and such was ridiculous, and in the end, the State had to figure out how to allow for divorce in marriages that were not allowed to happen in Texas.
Right, and I personally would file for divorce out of spite also and make it difficult just to cluster**** them as much as possible even though I have zero intention of getting one. Anything to make it hard for them. So would countless other same sex couples. It would be ridiculous, the blowback. Many more things. What about wills, taxes, estates, both of your (married) names on childrens' birth certificates? Supreme Court isn't even going to hear a case about this let alone overturn SSM. Regular, lower courts would be tied up for all time with custody cluster****s, people suing the state, etc. etc. It would be a huge HUGE mess that they don't want to mess with.
I don't agree with the decision Friday but abortion is killing a baby, IDC what science calls it. This is two people who love each other wanting to marry. I got married in court. 1100+ federal benefits to marriage, it's not going anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Yes it would be messy but no it is no longer something that is far fetched.... for a long time the complete repeal of Roe was considered far fetched. Yeh... the line at which the procedure can and cannot be done was something that can be moved/debated/etc.... but complete repeal was considered far fetched. It only took 2 years to do so.
Its not like states don't have to void marriages they simply don't have to recognize them.
Please see above, I would direct that same response toward you as well. SSM isn't going anywhere.
Constitutionally, any type of marriage should be left to the states. The federal government is not empowered to interject. Personally, I support the individual's decision as it does not intrude on my rights in any way.
Government should get out of the marriage business. If two or more people want to enter a contract to share personal items, then so be it.
What makes it a federal concern is when laws are enacted that violate equal protection. States don't have to allow for ANY marriage....but if they do allow for marriage, they have to allow for gay marriage.
These moral codes go back well beyond Judeo-Christian religions. Our nation was founded based on the idea of being completely separated and differentiated from Western Europe. That's why our Constitution forbids general Europeans themes such as the government and religions playing a large role in how people live their lives. It's also why founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson referred to religion and God (largely Christianity) as nonsensical "abracadabra".
That being said, neither the Torah nor Bible represent any form of moral code that would be accepted by modern society.
The claim that the formation of the United States represented a radical departure from the tradition of political governance in Europe , especially that of Britain , is a completely and utterly ahistorical .
It's once again beyond my scope to expound at length on this issue , but for the sake of brevity I'll be sharing the following from Russell Kirk's " The Roots Of American Order " :
" For justifying a thorough change in government, the Patriots did not have to turn to radical theorists. They could cite the father of the common law, Henry Bracton, in the middle of the thirteenth century: " Let the king render back to the Law what the Law gives to him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not Law , wields dominion. " They could turn to Richard Hooker , in the sixteenth century , on how an unjust king should be resisted. They looked, most of all , to the precedent of 1688, in which a government had been unseated and even a king dethroned-but the fabric of society had been uninjured " .
In short the American War of Independence , unlike the French Revolution , was not in the least at odds with the traditional European ( more specifically British ) political order , and the effort made at explaining the United States of America as representing an order totally separate from that of traditional European derived orders is not only false but , and here I do not intend to level any accusations against you personally of course , very harmful since it contributes to divorcing our inherent ties to European aka Western Civilization .
The United States of America very much derived itself , root and branch , from Europe and any attempt at achieving a neat and clean ( also totally imaginary ) break from that legacy is a serious , even if totally unintentional as it often is , strike at our heritage .
It's also very important to remember that what is often today referred to as " European " in relation to political phenomena , is also completely at odds with the true proper European political order , being more often than not derived from the legacy of the French Revolution or the kindred newfangled theories of dastardly intellects like Karl Popper or Altiero Spinelli .
Christian moral is not the same as Buddhist moral, not the same as Mormon faith moral, not the same as Jewish moral and not the same as Muslim moral. The 1st Amendmend to the Constitution says that no religion should be treated above any other. On top of that, anyone can start his own religion and its own set of practices.
So, in the end, you would need to select the most low level set of morals for government to enforce - as long as your morals don't really harm me (but not my morals!) they should be totally acceptable and protected by law.
As far as marriage going, it's a special form of business partnership, nothing else. And it should be treated as such - any number of person agree upfront what they want from this partnership, what rights they delegate to the partners in the partnership, who and how makes the decisions in this partnership, how and when it gets dissolved if any of the partners leave or are expelled (and for which causes). The government then can take a role of overseeing the rights of the children are met, ensure all parties are acting voluntarily and in good faith, monitor for domestic violence and become an arbiter if there is any disagreement about the contract terms.
_Right_now_ I see no real reason why I cannot make a legal contract with any person(s) and get most of the same protections as a marriage for any partner. Power of Attorney can grant access to common bank accounts, visitation rights, decisions regarding children, etc. Well, maybe some right won't be met, but I think a good legal framework can be constructed by some good lawyers to give same or nearly same protections as a married couple has.
I won't be addressing the original intent of the First Amendment in this post for want of space and scope , but suffice to say that regardless of the individual religious beliefs of the Founders , it is highly misguided to assume that Christianity had no great influence upon the foundation of the order of the United States of America .
Again I must refer to the conception of what we today call natural law , which while in a certain sense existed among ancient philosophers , was only fully developed into what it is now by Christian philosophers during the Middle Ages .
As can be amply demonstrated , the Founders were heavily influenced by this distinctly Christian derived concept of natural law , even if they themselves weren't necessarily all or even mostly practicing Christians .
And while the classical liberal maxim of limiting the coercive power of the state to ( by and large ) only restraining its citizens when they attempt to violate the natural rights to life , liberty , property , and the pursuit of happiness of others is very worthy of support , it in and of itself cannot be the foundation of the proper moral order of society .
After all virtue is an essential ingredient of any well functioning society and it's quite impossible to impart the necessary measure of public virtue required to sustain such a society , in the complete absence of religious faith .
Marriage is also much more than a mere business partnership , since it is and always was the wellspring of that most precious and organic institution called the family , arguably the preeminent physical nucleus around which any proper society can form .
Since the primary purpose of marriage since time immemorial , though of course very much denied in these times of widespread philosophical falsehood , is the formation of a family it only serves to reason that homosexuals be excluded from it since they literally cannot form a family by proper natural means .
Allowing them to artificially found one via the adoption or surrogate conception of children only serves to make a mockery of the whole institution , not to mention introduce potentially irreparable confusion into the lives of the unfortunate children raised in such circumstances , which is why the stance of allowing homosexuals to adopt and/or conceive ( via surrogate methods ) children should be morally opposed .
All this typed moral opposition to a particular thing need not be conflated with political opposition to the same , i.e. I for one do not actually favor a nationwide federal level ban on homosexual marriage and/or adoption plus surrogacy rights .
Just as it is prudent to not expect nor require that the Netherlands and Poland have uniform legislation relating to this matter , it is also prudent that in a federal state as ours where no nationwide majority consensus regarding this matter exists , it be the duty of individual states and/or even local organs of government such as counties or municipalities to legislate over this issue .
Only in big government states that want to control people by reducing their freedom.
What states banned interracial marraiges? Not 'big government' states!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
