Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

[Quiddity]

Same-sex couples aren't out to alter the definition of marriage either. We just want what the interracial couples wanted: equal marriage rights.

If you say so.

 

[standing_alone]

Completely disagree and a flat out lie.

Can you explain why it's a "flat out lie?"

 

[Quiddity]

Can you explain why it's a "flat out lie?"

Because it is blantantly obvious that early America had Christian morale instituted in it's system. Even if it was secular, it was/has been interpreted through Christian lens. That may **** people off but it is what it is.

 

[pdoel]

If you say so.

What a great comeback.

There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl. There was a time when women were considered property, and were more or less bartered to a husband.

There was a time when it was illegal for a black and a white to marry. There was a time when it was wrong for someone of one religion to marry someone of a different religion.

If these are all "different" definitions of marriage, then why is homosexuality any different?

At the very core, a marriage is a committment between two people. That's the basis of a marriage. I don't understand why, over thousands of years, marriage has gone from an Earthly institution, to a religious one, to one of convenience (at times), one allowing people of different faiths, one allowing people of different races, etc.

Yet, you are saying that homosexuals are now trying to redefine marriage.

Please.

 

[Quiddity]

What a great comeback.

There was a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl. There was a time when women were considered property, and were more or less bartered to a husband.

There was a time when it was illegal for a black and a white to marry. There was a time when it was wrong for someone of one religion to marry someone of a different religion.

If these are all "different" definitions of marriage, then why is homosexuality any different?

At the very core, a marriage is a committment between two people. That's the basis of a marriage. I don't understand why, over thousands of years, marriage has gone from an Earthly institution, to a religious one, to one of convenience (at times), one allowing people of different faiths, one allowing people of different races, etc.

Yet, you are saying that homosexuals are now trying to redefine marriage.

Please.

It wasn't intended as a comeback I just don't buy it. I do not believe this is solely a civil rights issue. Sorry, but it's obvious to me that it's more then that. Painting it as a civil rights movement was simply the quickest way to get it done. Why else do you think others aren't willing to "agree to disagree" with me if this is simply a civil rights issues. Rrrrrrrrright.

 

[Pah]

Because it is blantantly obvious that early America had Christian morale instituted in it's system. Even if it was secular, it was/has been interpreted through Christian lens. That may **** people off but it is what it is.

You'll have to prove that Christian morality and not some humanistic morality was present in early secular law.

We all know the faults of some Christian interpreation - prohibition, slavery, criminalization of sodomy, supression of the women's vote, massacre of Native Americans, the Salem Witch Trials etc., ect. It is unreliable for the truth of social justice.

 

[Quiddity]

You'll have to prove that Christian morality and not some humanistic morality was present in early secular law.

We all know the faults of some Christian interpreation - prohibition, slavery, criminalization of sodomy, supression of the women's vote, massacre of Native Americans, the Salem Witch Trials etc., ect. It is unreliable for the truth of social justice.

No thanks. That is quite a task. Talked to enough professors and others in the field to to be content my conclusion. I think lilthu did fine here.

 

[Pah]

According to John Rawls, The Theory of Justice, the common good does not have a religious morality but one of it's own.

Completely disagree and a flat out lie.

You've read the book? I'm sure you're not saying the lie is from me so it must be someone else, perhaps Rawls, that is lying. But then you would have to call those he referenced liars as well if it is Rawls. Sounds like a conspiracy of scholars is being formed.

 

[Quiddity]

You've read the book? I'm sure you're not saying the lie is from me so it must be someone else, perhaps Rawls, that is lying. But then you would have to call those he referenced liars as well if it is Rawls. Sounds like a conspiracy of scholars is being formed.

I didn't know Rawls was the consensus of scholars.:bow:
If Rawls is the one that said it then I apply it to him, not you.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

First, it is NOT just a euphemism for divorce, and second, you are correct, tons of "Catholics" these days DON'T understand what they are getting into. A lot of it has to do with how uneducated and unprincipled many of them are. This has come about due to massive loss of touch with morals and conscience in our society.

Yes, and plenty of them pick and choose which bits of being a Catholic they're going to go along with, and which bits don't suit them. Strangely enough, it's the bits that allow them to look down on other people that get kept. My sister in law is Catholic...she freely admitted that had she known her brother's fiance was divorced before she met her, she would have thought less of her for that reason. Mind you, she wasn't so strict about pre-marital sex. :sarcastic Actually, she's a font of convenience Catholicism...I have no time for that.
Just because you're raised in a religion doesn't make you of it. If you're of a particular religion that has certain restrictions on behaviour, then I think you need to abide by them, or stop saying you're *Insert religion here*. Either get with the program, or go out and find yourself a program that allows you to behave as you wish.
If you are truly a Catholic and prepared to live as the church dictates, then frankly I don't think a loss of touch of morals and conscience in society will have any effect on how you behave.
By the same token, just because you abide by the restrictions of your religion, that doesn't give you the right to force those restrictions on anyone else NOT of your religion.

 

[Pah]

You'll have to prove that Christian morality and not some humanistic morality was present in early secular law.

We all know the faults of some Christian interpreation - prohibition, slavery, criminalization of sodomy, supression of the women's vote, massacre of Native Americans, the Salem Witch Trials etc., ect. It is unreliable for the truth of social justice.

No thanks. That is quite a task. Talked to enough professors and others in the field to to be content my conclusion. I think lilthu did fine here.

We are fast going off topic so I'll stick by the quote above and ask the question of the OP again. It's not found in faith nor in Constitutional law so what gives you the right to vote on my rights. Can you outlaw atheism? Until there is a Federal law or Amendment that purports to define marriage, what right, other than the right of being foolish, can the states have for forcing a vote on law or Amendment?

Hehehe. The first case brought before the US or State Supreme Court may well say "There is more to a marriage definition than expressed in the Amendment/law". Now wouldn't that show this "grab for religious power" to be wasteful?

 

[nutshell]

:rainbow1: :rainbow1: :rainbow1: :rainbow1:
LURKING

 

[standing_alone]

LURKING

If you were just "LURKING" you wouldn't be making posts in the thread then, especially ones claiming you're just "LURKING," would you? Hmmm? (Sorry, not trying to be rude. Just had to mention it.)

 

[greatcalgarian]

We are fast going off topic so I'll stick by the quote above and ask the question of the OP again. It's not found in faith nor in Constitutional law so what gives you the right to vote on my rights. Can you outlaw atheism? Until there is a Federal law or Amendment that purports to define marriage, what right, other than the right of being foolish, can the states have for forcing a vote on law or Amendment?

Hehehe. The first case brought before the US or State Supreme Court may well say "There is more to a marriage definition than expressed in the Amendment/law". Now wouldn't that show this "grab for religious power" to be wasteful?

I would say there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong', or you have the 'right' to do certain thing etc. The so called democratic process is just the way a group of more vocal individuals managed to convince more than 50% of the population to agree with what that group thought is best for that group in terms of social 'law'. So currently which ever group that controlled the press (media) will control the 'opinion' and will impose whatever that group loves to do. Single individual has little effect against such a group. Unless the interest of the silent majority is affected, the group in control normally can get away with what they want to do.
Americans have drifted from early day secular high tide with very high motive to excel and become successful. However, after being on top of the world for the past 50 years, Americans have started to lose focus on what to do. When nations rise to their peak, corruption of the system normally lead to moral decay. When that happened, the religious arm will then flourish. And that is what we observe in the current US, where people bank their hope on religion to give them a meaning of life. And when this religious group tasted the blood of power (the religous right help to put Bush there, right?), their 'right' becomes the only 'right'.

 

[Smoke]

First, it is NOT just a euphemism for divorce, and second, you are correct, tons of "Catholics" these days DON'T understand what they are getting into. A lot of it has to do with how uneducated and unprincipled many of them are. This has come about due to massive loss of touch with morals and conscience in our society.

No, you can't just pass the buck to "society." We're talking about Catholic marriages. If it's due to massive loss of touch with morals and conscience, that loss has occurred in the Catholic Church. Like I said, if the Church is worried about the sanctity of marriage, let it look to its own.

 

[Smoke]

If you say so.

Well, good. I'm glad we've got that settled.

 

[Smoke]

It wasn't intended as a comeback I just don't buy it. I do not believe this is solely a civil rights issue. Sorry, but it's obvious to me that it's more then that. Painting it as a civil rights movement was simply the quickest way to get it done. Why else do you think others aren't willing to "agree to disagree" with me if this is simply a civil rights issues. Rrrrrrrrright.

Well then, explain exactly how the definition of marriage would be changed. Not who is allowed to marry, mind you, but marriage itself.

 

[jamaesi]

I hope sarcasm brings you joy --- you seem to have a lot of it.

We've learned sarcasm as a coping device.





And praytell, how isn't marriage a civil rights issue?

 

[jamaesi]

Well then, explain exactly how the definition of marriage would be changed. Not who is allowed to marry, mind you, but marriage itself.

It wouldn't be a device for men to have power over women anymore, even though it's already moved away from that- which was traditional marriage.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Victor,

I don't think anyone can argue that government and law were greatly influenced by a Christian perspective throughout American history. At the same time, I don't believe that a religion as broad and diverse as "Christianity" can truly claim sole posession of American ideals like freedom of speech, religion, and representative democracy. Many Christians in the past and present have opposed those ideals. Many non-Christians (examples: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln) have embraced them. Even if "Christianity" could claim the sole posession of those ideals, would it then be forced to concede sole posession of slavery, of suppressing women's voting rights, of treating blacks like property, of prohibiting inter racial marriage? I don't think it's fair to attribute any of these to as broad a category as "Christianity".

My point is that the extent to which "Christianity" has been a part of our law during our history is a moot point. Racism has also been a big part of our country's law and thinking for much of our history. So what? It would be absurd to forever confine ourselves to Tradition for no rational reason other than it is Tradition. And, as I'm sure you're well aware, there is no consensus amongst Christians--some Christians were abolitionists, some were anti-abolitionists; many Christians are against gay marriage, but there are also Christians who support gay marriage (in terms of law, not necessarily in terms of its morality).

So it is useless to try to rationalize opposition to gay marriage by citing our culturally Christian roots (and certainly no one can deny that our country has strong Christian roots).

nutshell --

Would you care to respond to my question? I asked you in my last post if you could explain what you are looking for in terms of "evidence" that something is a human right. I thought I already supplied you the evidence you were looking for, but apparently not. It would help if you cited something you believe to be a human right, and then provided the "evidence" which demonstrates that it is indeed a human right.

For example, perhaps you could provide us with the "evidence" that being Mormon is a human right. That way, I know what you're looking for when you request "evidence" that gay marriage is a human right.

Thanks