Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Marriage
Topic Started: Nov 19 2003, 11:35 PM (465 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Nov 20 2003, 06:36 PM
Marriage is first and foremost: Holy Matrimony.  Government does not have this right.

To you - not to me - Who is right? My point is the government can not make the decision, it must accept all choices .

You and your organization then have the right to see things your way if you wish. if you wish to not expect gay marriages that is your choice. The government must accept it.

Quote:
 
you are suggesting that government ussurp the meaning of marriage and pervert it
Again I ask who is to say what the meaning of marriage is when it is practice across the board by many different people, with many different ideas. How does one religion stake claim when many practice?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
38957
Nov 20 2003, 05:21 PM
I wasn't refering to a particular church or saying that a church should be involved in making secular law regarding marriage.  I was saying that marriage is a place where government and church meet.  This is because government chooses to recognize marriage (which is a religious institution) for the benefit of society.  This makes it a very special case and it should not be redefined by the state as it is religious in origen, not secular.

I disagree. Marriage is not a religious institution. It may have ORIGINALLY been that, but it is no longer ONLY that. Marriage is also a legal institution which is why atheists still get married if only by a Justice of the Peace. It is also a personal commitment that a couple may want to enter into even if religion is unimportant to them and they don't care about the legal protections, benefits, and requirements. Today, marriage is only a religious institution for those who value religion and choose to make this part of their marriage.

When it comes to the legislature deciding whether to allow homosexual marriages, religion should play no part in that decision. The only place religion can appropriately be considered in allowing/banning types of marriages is within the individual religious institutions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
You are missing the whole point of my post. The legislature isn't deciding anything. The courts are blackmailing the legislature into either passing a law allowing gay marriages or they will make it legal themselves. The only way the legislature could fight this if they wanted to would be to lobby Congress for a Constitutional Ammendment. This post is not about gays, marriage, or gay marriage. It is about dictators sitting on the benches of courts. The balance of power in our government is tipping dangerously towards the judicial branch. How long before the judges feel emboldened enough to bypass Congress entirely and start making laws piecemel?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
doctortobe
Nov 20 2003, 06:12 PM
You are missing the whole point of my post. The legislature isn't deciding anything. The courts are blackmailing the legislature into either passing a law allowing gay marriages or they will make it legal themselves. The only way the legislature could fight this if they wanted to would be to lobby Congress for a Constitutional Ammendment. This post is not about gays, marriage, or gay marriage. It is about dictators sitting on the benches of courts. The balance of power in our government is tipping dangerously towards the judicial branch. How long before the judges feel emboldened enough to bypass Congress entirely and start making laws piecemel?

I am of that opinion as well. It all started with Marbury vs Madison :realmad:

Marriage has been around longer than any government in the world. Government does not have the right to define a religious rite (reference constitution). If athiest choose to get married for whatever benefits, they do so hypocritically as marriage is really government sactioned religious rites.

Marriage is defined, has been defined for thousands of years. It doesn't need the latest PC government definition.

THank God the government doesn't want anything to do with baptism.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I would have to say that change comes in all different ways. I do not believe it is wrong for the judicial branch to pressers another branch (its all part of the system). The wrong doing will come when "judges feel emboldened enough to bypass Congress entirely and start making laws piecemeal".

I feel the legislative and executive branches have become to full with people trying to keep their jobs to the point where they wont make the hard decisions because they don’t want to piss people off. Maybe what they need is a swift kick in the ass from the legislative branch.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Nov 20 2003, 07:37 PM
If athiest choose to get married for whatever benefits, they do so hypocritically as marriage is really government sactioned religious rites.

Explain why only Christians disserve the benefits of government that come with marriage with out being called hypocritical. Yet if an atheist would like these same benefits they are called hypocritical? I find that every close minded.

Quote:
 
Marriage is defined, has been defined for thousands of years. It doesn't need the latest PC government definition.
marriage has been defined differently by different people for thousands of years. So again I ask you who’s is right? Why does one get to stake claim?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I didn't say christian, I said religious.

I also said that the government institution is based in the government recognizing the religious rite (not right) for the benefit of society. This religious rite was based in Christianity because that is the group that founded our government, so that is the definition we have isn't it.

It is obvious that we will not agree on this. I have made my debating points and you have kept your end up quite admirably I must say. So, I respectfully bow out of this discussion as it seems we are at an empasse.

I do enjoy the discussions. Thanks. I am going to take the wife out for her birthday, have a nice evening. :wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Nov 20 2003, 07:49 PM
I didn't say christian, I said religious.

I also said that the government institution is based in the government recognizing the religious rite (not right) for the benefit of society. This religious rite was based in Christianity because that is the group that founded our government, so that is the definition we have isn't it.

It is obvious that we will not agree on this. I have made my debating points and you have kept your end up quite admirably I must say. So, I respectfully bow out of this discussion as it seems we are at an empasse.

I do enjoy the discussions. Thanks.

Well then you leave me no choice but to be just as gracious and bow out the argument as well :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

38957
Nov 20 2003, 06:37 PM
If athiest choose to get married for whatever benefits, they do so hypocritically as marriage is really government sactioned religious rites.

38957: an atheist who marries - a hypocrite? What a load of crap.

How would you categorize a person who seems to believe that a marriage license in 2003 USA should only be issued to recognize a union between a religious man and a religious woman?
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Dandandat
Nov 20 2003, 06:41 PM
I would have to say that change comes in all different ways. I do not believe it is wrong for the judicial branch to pressers another branch (its all part of the system). The wrong doing will come when "judges feel emboldened enough to bypass Congress entirely and start making laws piecemeal".

I feel the legislative and executive branches have become to full with people trying to keep their jobs to the point where they wont make the hard decisions because they don’t want to piss people off. Maybe what they need is a swift kick in the ass from the legislative branch.

The judicial branch has ALREADY bypassed the legislature, at least at the state level. The judges are actually ORDERING the legislature to enact a new law. The branches of government do not have the power to order each other around unless there has been a crime commited (i.e. impeachment of the President).

I would rather have inactive Executive and Legislative branches then a Judicial branch that is overstepping its boundries. At least with the Executive and Legislative branches you actually ELECT the individuals. The Judicial branch is immune from public opinion. This is the right thing to do when they are doing their job. But if they are going to enact laws, then there must be SOME accountability to the public. They can't have it both ways, at least not in a democracy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

doctortobe
Nov 20 2003, 07:25 PM
The judicial branch has ALREADY bypassed the legislature, at least at the state level. The judges are actually ORDERING the legislature to enact a new law. The branches of government do not have the power to order each other around unless there has been a crime commited (i.e. impeachment of the President).

I would rather have inactive Executive and Legislative branches then a Judicial branch that is overstepping its boundries. At least with the Executive and Legislative branches you actually ELECT the individuals. The Judicial branch is immune from public opinion. This is the right thing to do when they are doing their job. But if they are going to enact laws, then there must be SOME accountability to the public. They can't have it both ways, at least not in a democracy.

Speaking specifically about the Supreme Court - I'll be a little more critical of the Judicial branch of our government when the other two branches stop trying to "pollute" the benches with activists who will, almost certainly, interpret the Law in a way that serves particular values and interests. I laugh when I think of former President Bush nominating Justice Souter - maybe there is justice after all.

Also, I'll be a little more critical of the Judicial branch of our government when there are no more stupid, stupid, laws written by ignorant legislators and enforced by law enforcement - - such as the situation that initiated Lawrence v. Texas.
| Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
But there's a difference between a marriage between a 30 year old man and 10 year old girl and a gay marriage. The gay marriage is between two consenting adults. The other is not.

A 10 year old girl's consent is not recognized by the law, either. This is why we have the term statutory rape.


So if the law recognized the right of a 10 year old to marry a 30 year old then it would be alright?

This was Roman law, after all.

Morality is not defined by law.

If it were, there would be no argument about same such marriages because most states still have anti sodomy laws on the books.

What about third parties who do not consent to same sex marriages but must recognise them by law. When the state legitimises such action, third parties such as rentors, employers, and health insures must, by law, offer the same benefits to the spouse of a same sex couple as a traditional mariage.

This means that the law is used to FORCE those who have moral objections to regonise same sex marriage against there own moral judgement.

Should the state have the right to use force in moral judgements?

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ANOVA
Nov 20 2003, 05:20 PM
So if the law recognized the right of a 10 year old to marry a 30 year old then it would be alright?

This was Roman law, after all.

Morality is not defined by law.

Yet, law is often shaped by morality. Laws tend to evolve from more rudimentary systems of rewards and consequences, which can then in turn modify the more rudimentary forms that still exist...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
benetil
Nov 20 2003, 07:44 PM
doctortobe
Nov 20 2003, 07:25 PM
The judicial branch has ALREADY bypassed the legislature, at least at the state level.  The judges are actually ORDERING the legislature to enact a new law.  The branches of government do not have the power to order each other around unless there has been a crime commited (i.e. impeachment of the President).

I would rather have inactive Executive and Legislative branches then a Judicial branch that is overstepping its boundries.  At least with the Executive and Legislative branches you actually ELECT the individuals.  The Judicial branch is immune from public opinion.  This is the right thing to do when they are doing their job.  But if they are going to enact laws, then there must be SOME accountability to the public.  They can't have it both ways, at least not in a democracy.

Speaking specifically about the Supreme Court - I'll be a little more critical of the Judicial branch of our government when the other two branches stop trying to "pollute" the benches with activists who will, almost certainly, interpret the Law in a way that serves particular values and interests. I laugh when I think of former President Bush nominating Justice Souter - maybe there is justice after all.

Also, I'll be a little more critical of the Judicial branch of our government when there are no more stupid, stupid, laws written by ignorant legislators and enforced by law enforcement - - such as the situation that initiated Lawrence v. Texas.

So just because the elected officials are caught up in politics, you would rather the courts handle everything? You would rather give up any say you have in government?

Why do you think that both parties are so bent on putting people of their own views on the bench? They know there is a problem and they want to use it to their advantage. What better way to enact Democrat or Republican laws then to have the courts made up entirely of party members?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Yet, law is often shaped by morality


And legal prohibitions shaped by the existing view of immorality.

It's when the court would force us to enter into contracts with the 30 year old guy and his 10 year old wife that it oversteps its bounds and enforces a moral code that is not part of its duty to protect individual rights.

Quote:
 

They know there is a problem and they want to use it to their advantage. What better way to enact Democrat or Republican laws then to have the courts made up entirely of party members


The problem is the courts set themselves up as the sole arbitors of the constitution. This was not initially so. The concept of checks and balances breaks down when one branch becomes the final aythority.

ANOVA

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus