| 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: |
| Marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 19 2003, 11:35 PM (463 Views) | |
| benetil | Nov 21 2003, 01:01 PM Post #31 |
|
Unregistered
|
Hi, doctortobe. I think I understand the concerns that you have - and your point behind posting the topic for discussion. It is a very important topic. I just don't think that the courts handle everything. When I look at the three branches of government that we have here in the USA, I find the Judicial branch to be the least scary - but I understand that others will see things differently. The Legislative branch (US Congress) - an unseemly assortment of convicts and millionaires who exempt themselves from many of the Laws they write and vote themselves pay raises - most of these individuals are unwilling to make an unpopular decision for fear that it will cost them their re-election The Executive branch (US President) - an egomaniac who is, arguably, the most powerful individual on the planet (not to mention that anyone who would even want to be President could probably be accused of suffering from a variety of psychological disorders) - - and I have to mention again that the Executive and Legislative branches have a shameless policy of polluting the third branch of government with individuals who will be inclined to interpret/rule in a "suitable" fashion - - (I'm primarily talking about the federal government here, I understand that not all judges are appointed - many are elected by voters) I know that Judges are people too - but my argument is more in support of the Judicial branch so I'll let you/others vilify them For me, the most humorous aspect of this whole issue is watching the outrage of the more conservative, traditional citizens in response to a ruling like the recent one from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - clamoring to ensure that a certain civil-standing or a particular benefit is not bestowed upon a minority group in our population. We start hearing about how state licensed gay marriages (or civil-unions that extend the same basic benefits as traditional marriage) will corrupt the sanctity of holy matrimony (when male/female couples have been doing such a fine job of corrupting the institution of marriage on their own). I don't remember hearing any of/most of these people decrying the "evils" of the Las Vegas marriage-circus - but they come out in wild defense of "everything that is holy" when their personal morals are offended. The other thing that makes me chuckle a little bit is when I hear someone insisting on a law that prohibits a certain deed for no reason other than that deed offends his/her moral values - it isn't enough for that person to simply abstain/refrain - no, others must be forbidden as well - - LEGISLATING a particular MORAL code. In cases like this, I have to wonder if the true motive isn't mostly discriminatory in nature. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | Nov 21 2003, 01:07 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
The way the framers thought: Legislative branch: Most powerful branch with members directly elected by the populous (Senators used to be appointed by the elected officials of the states). Up for relection every 2 years for House and 6 years for Senate. Once removed from the electorate. Executive branch: Second most powerful branch. Elected by the electoral college of representatives from the states. Up for reelection every 4 years. Twice removed from the electorate. Judicial branch: Least powerful branch. Appointed by Executive and approved by Legislature who are elected as described above. Never elected, appointed once and can serve for life. Thrice removed from the electorate Clearly, we should want most power in the legislature as that is where we have the most ability for recourse. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Nov 21 2003, 02:47 PM Post #33 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Buy legislating infavor of same sex marriage they ARE legislating a particular moral code, and FORCING those who don't agree with it to acknoledge its legitimacy. Why not polygamy? It has all the components that both sides argue about. Legalised polygamy redefines the concept of marriage in the western world. Legalised polygamy would qualify as moral under the acdult consent model. It even has historical religious backing from the Mormons, yes I know this is no longer true, and Islam. What are laws for if not defining a moral and socially acceptable moral code. No such code, no need for laws. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:14 PM Jul 11