Richard Hanson
New member
I am home sick today and however much I have enjoyed this civil discussion, I am fatigued and must depart for some time as I need to take a nap.
Good Shooting All,
Richard
Good Shooting All,
Richard
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Protecting the institution
- Thread starter Redworm
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
MarkoKloos
"____
Quote:
"It wasn't so long ago that living a homosexual lifestyle was against the law and our societal moral code. Now, a few decades later, homosexuals are wanting legal recognition for their unions and we have special laws that protect homosexuals."
"""It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriage was against the law and our societal moral code, too. In fact, virtually all the arguments that were used against interracial marriage back in the day are now being used against gay marriage.___"
My point was that laws and societal morals change.
"____
Quote:
"It wasn't so long ago that living a homosexual lifestyle was against the law and our societal moral code. Now, a few decades later, homosexuals are wanting legal recognition for their unions and we have special laws that protect homosexuals."
"""It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriage was against the law and our societal moral code, too. In fact, virtually all the arguments that were used against interracial marriage back in the day are now being used against gay marriage.___"
My point was that laws and societal morals change.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Was the intent of the 14th amendment to insure that every contrived minority would be granted equal treatment before the law, or that every person, specifically including former slaves, would enjoy the same basic rights as every other person?
Yes, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to insure that everyone would be granted equal treatment before the law. I fail to see where that's deplorable in any way.
What of pedophiles? Should their sexual preferences be extended the same considerations that you would extend to homosexuals or should the law discriminate between these two minority groups of sexual deviants such that the treatment they receive before the law is unequal? It is my view that pedophiles should be, upon conviction, sentence to long terms in prison, but I do not hold to a similar view concerning homosexuals excepting only those homosexuals that are also pedophiles.
Non-pedophiles, whether they are gay or straight, should be left alone in the pursuit of their lives and relationships because they involve consenting adults. Pedophiles do not fall under that category, because they violate someone else's rights, namely those of the children they victimize. Homosexuality is not synonymous with pedophilia (in fact, most pedophiles are straight males, although there are also gay pedophiles), and they should not be considered on the same level either morally or legally.
The reason we have a constitutional republic is to protect people from the will of the mob; just because "the majority" says we should all turn over our phone records to the NSA and give up our guns does not mean we should have to.Redworm, you have every right to advocate for your position and I can assure you that if the proposed Amendment where to become law, it would not be my views that are imposed but rather the views of a super majority of the American people. Your question is very fundamental and can be best answered by understanding that our government is based on the theories of social contractarianism derived from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. We have voluntarily vested in our government certain powers such that we live in a state of civilization instead of in a state of nature. Why have any law and what is to be the nature of that law? I am certainly not an anarchist.
Is not our legal prohibition against murder simultaneously a moral principle expressed in a number of major religions including Christianity?
Respectfully,
Richard
Laws against murder have existed far longer than christianity and numerous other religions.
The bottom line is that me marrying another dude does not negatively affect you or anyone else in any way.
Okie,
The difference is that there have always been gay people. You may hold your own counsel as to it's morality, but it's there. Always has been there. Always will be there.
People, with *extremely* rare exceptions, do not wish to bind themselves in holy matrimony to their Waring blender. Never have. Never will.
This is a completely absurd slippery slope argument. Not that I blame you for it, mind you....but the folks you heard it from know better and are merely using it as a defense of their completely indefensible position.
Richard,
All I can say is that the gay marriage debate is the inverse of the gun control debate. You may decide for yourself the morality of their actions, teach your kids that what they're doing is an abomination in the eyes of God, and decide to never enter into a gay marriage yourself.
But the Federal government is *not* a vehicle through which you may exercise your religious beliefs. If you wish to oppose gay marriage, do it through your church. If they are married then in the government's eyes they're married.
The difference is that there have always been gay people. You may hold your own counsel as to it's morality, but it's there. Always has been there. Always will be there.
People, with *extremely* rare exceptions, do not wish to bind themselves in holy matrimony to their Waring blender. Never have. Never will.
This is a completely absurd slippery slope argument. Not that I blame you for it, mind you....but the folks you heard it from know better and are merely using it as a defense of their completely indefensible position.
Richard,
All I can say is that the gay marriage debate is the inverse of the gun control debate. You may decide for yourself the morality of their actions, teach your kids that what they're doing is an abomination in the eyes of God, and decide to never enter into a gay marriage yourself.
But the Federal government is *not* a vehicle through which you may exercise your religious beliefs. If you wish to oppose gay marriage, do it through your church. If they are married then in the government's eyes they're married.
Hugh Damright
New member
What is "equal treatment under the law"? In the 1960's, Virginia said that black/white marriage was illegal, but it was illegal for both blacks and whites, and so there was equality under the law. It's not as if we had a law that said if a black and white marry then the black shall get five years and the white shall get one year. There was equality under the law. The SCOTUS decided that the 14th means that the States must be color blind, which is not the same as equality under the law, and it seems deplorable to have a living amendment like that, an "amendment" which passed because they said it passed, and that means whatever they say it means.Yes, the intent of the 14th Amendment was to insure that everyone would be granted equal treatment before the law. I fail to see where that's deplorable in any way.
I think that a homosexual has a right to marry, but they can only marry someone of the opposite gender, because that is what "marriage" is. I don't think there is a law which says that homosexuals cannot marry ... although they do ask if anybody knows any reason why the two should not be bound in holy matrimony ... But the point is, we have equality under the law, the intent is to redefine marriage.
By the way, back to this black/white marriage thing ... there seems to be some presumption that blacks wanted black/white marriage and whites did not, but what seems more likely to me is that neither blacks nor whites wanted it and yankees forced it upon us because that is what yankee imperialists do.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Nobody is trying to redefine the religious, traditional definition of marriage. The vast majority of gay couples who want to marry want to do so to secure financial, health and inheritance benefits for each other, because the same people who oppose a redefinition of traditional marriage have also locked it into law that those legal rights and benefits only pertain to such traditionally married couples.
If it was only an issue of protecting traditional definitions of marriage, there would be no debate. The only reason why there is any contention in the matter is because the straight folks have secured certain advantages in law for being a "traditional" heterosexual couple, and codified a denial of the same legal benefits for people who aren't.
In short, it's not about "protecting the institution of marriage", it's about protecting the special legal perks for people who are married according to the traditionally approved way.
If it was only an issue of protecting traditional definitions of marriage, there would be no debate. The only reason why there is any contention in the matter is because the straight folks have secured certain advantages in law for being a "traditional" heterosexual couple, and codified a denial of the same legal benefits for people who aren't.
In short, it's not about "protecting the institution of marriage", it's about protecting the special legal perks for people who are married according to the traditionally approved way.
“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.” John Adams
Agree with it or not, I believe the quote above to be true.
I think what ever happens in private (moral or otherwise) is going to continue inspire of legislation to the contrary. However, public conduct is subject to public control. I can walk around naked at home, but if I went down to the corner 7/11 naked, I could expect a visit from the police. Society (currently) finds that conduct to be morally offensive. Did it harm anyone? No (those who have seen me naked may disagree!). Has this 'moral judgment' infringed on conduct that I may find acceptable? Does government have that right?
I believe marriage to be a religious institution; If society allows same sex marriage then why not polygamist marriages? Are there not 'consenting adults' in both cases? What age would you set as the age of consent? Laws exist with ages as young as 12 and as old as 21.
The surest way to please nobody is to try and please everybody. My objections to same sex marriage are purely moral in nature. If we have digressed to a point that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Agnostic can no longer agree on common values, then brother, we are in for a very rocky ride!
Agree with it or not, I believe the quote above to be true.
I think what ever happens in private (moral or otherwise) is going to continue inspire of legislation to the contrary. However, public conduct is subject to public control. I can walk around naked at home, but if I went down to the corner 7/11 naked, I could expect a visit from the police. Society (currently) finds that conduct to be morally offensive. Did it harm anyone? No (those who have seen me naked may disagree!). Has this 'moral judgment' infringed on conduct that I may find acceptable? Does government have that right?
I believe marriage to be a religious institution; If society allows same sex marriage then why not polygamist marriages? Are there not 'consenting adults' in both cases? What age would you set as the age of consent? Laws exist with ages as young as 12 and as old as 21.
The surest way to please nobody is to try and please everybody. My objections to same sex marriage are purely moral in nature. If we have digressed to a point that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Agnostic can no longer agree on common values, then brother, we are in for a very rocky ride!
GoSlash,
Some how I get the feeling that I'm being misinterpreted. Maybe it's cause I mentioned my knowledge of the Bible and some people have catagorized me? Maybe it's just my feelings?
I am well aware that homosexuals have been around for a long time and that homosexuality is a natural thing among most animals. But that doesn't mean that those of us who disagree should be expected to go silently on our way.
There is no doubt in my mind that homosexuals will be allowed to legally marry.
My opinion of homosexuality is just my opinion I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.
Some how I get the feeling that I'm being misinterpreted. Maybe it's cause I mentioned my knowledge of the Bible and some people have catagorized me? Maybe it's just my feelings?
I am well aware that homosexuals have been around for a long time and that homosexuality is a natural thing among most animals. But that doesn't mean that those of us who disagree should be expected to go silently on our way.
There is no doubt in my mind that homosexuals will be allowed to legally marry.
My opinion of homosexuality is just my opinion I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself.
According to my understanding of the Bible, when a male and a female join to gether in the sex act they become one and are married in GOD's opinion.
We govern by the Constitution not the Bible...If you want to live by the bible and practice your religion go ahead. You have no business forcing biblical morality on other citizens of this nation.
They need to keep thier beliefs inside the doors of thier religious institution.
end of story.....
We are a nation of laws not religion.
if you want to go to places where nations are run by religious law and gay marraiges and sex are not allowed feel free to move to one of the muslim nations.
Heterosexuals have made a travesty of marriage....That is where Chrisitans should be focusing thier efforts is helping folks stay together.. instead of sticking thier beaks in folks bedrooms and lives.
religious folks didnt even agree with each other when Jesus was around.....the apostles were too busy telling Jesus how thing should work even back then instead of listening to him. The same problem that exists in Chrisitanity today, some of them are busy running the pie hole and throwing rocks when they should be listening and taking care of thier own religious standing with God and let the rest of us worry about our own religious needs.
Hugh Damright
New member
if you want to go to places where nations are run by religious law and gay marraiges and sex are not allowed feel free to move to one of the muslim nations.
So ... if I want Christian values I must move to a Muslim nation? I think I'll just stay in Virginia, and this fall I'll vote to amend our Constitution to ban homosexual marriage/union in Virginia.
Richard Hanson
New member
GoSlash27,
You err in thinking that I would have the federal government implement my religious beliefs. I am not a religious person as I am an atheist, a none-theist, and I do not believe in the Christian God or any other god.
Redworm,
The reason we have a government is to secure our natural liberties and the reason we have a republic is our founding fathers felt that a republic was the form of government that best served that purpose. Over the years our government has become progressively more democratic and we have, consequently, increasingly suffered from the detrimental characteristics of democratic government, primarily the tendency of democratic government to decay into a state of socialism. I will gladly admit that what is right or what is wrong is not subject to a determination at the ballot box as people most often exercise their franchise to serve their own selfish interests instead of the interests of the people as a hole. I would note, however, that a Constitutional amendment requires more then a simple majority, it requires a large super-majority and however flawed the democratic government might be, it is preferable to the tyranny of a court over which the people exercise no significant control.
I also disagree with your statement that homosexual marriages does not negatively effect anyone as we all suffer opportunity costs. The nuclear family is the fundamental building block of every society and to the extent that the nuclear family is weakened society is weakened. Society suffers an opportunity cost when homosexuals decide to bind one to another instead of forming nuclear families. Every man committed to another man reduces the number of men available to fulfill the function of a man within a nuclear family. If I where a lazy, unproductive and slovenly person, I would certainly suffer the consequences of such behavior to the greatest extent, but society would also suffer the loss of my industry as my labors benefits more then just myself and my family. Every action we take, every choice we make, involves opportunity costs including the choices of homosexuals.
As we live in a free society we can not justly compel the labors of the lazy nor can we force a homosexual to form committed relationships with women. The simple fact that we have rights does not in any way imply that how we choose to exercise those rights has no negative impact on the character or health of the society in which we live. An honorable man does not simply proclaim his rights to justify the gratification of whatever selfish desires he might experience, he understands that freedom does not exist without responsibility.
For these reasons, I favor government programs, especially at the state level, that serve to reinforce a strong nuclear family and I am apposed to those programs or policies that would tend to weaken the same. Extending civil marriage to the homosexual community will do harm to our society so I support the Amendment to our Constitution that would reinforce the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage while denying the same to homosexuals.
Respectfully,
Richard
You err in thinking that I would have the federal government implement my religious beliefs. I am not a religious person as I am an atheist, a none-theist, and I do not believe in the Christian God or any other god.
Redworm,
The reason we have a government is to secure our natural liberties and the reason we have a republic is our founding fathers felt that a republic was the form of government that best served that purpose. Over the years our government has become progressively more democratic and we have, consequently, increasingly suffered from the detrimental characteristics of democratic government, primarily the tendency of democratic government to decay into a state of socialism. I will gladly admit that what is right or what is wrong is not subject to a determination at the ballot box as people most often exercise their franchise to serve their own selfish interests instead of the interests of the people as a hole. I would note, however, that a Constitutional amendment requires more then a simple majority, it requires a large super-majority and however flawed the democratic government might be, it is preferable to the tyranny of a court over which the people exercise no significant control.
I also disagree with your statement that homosexual marriages does not negatively effect anyone as we all suffer opportunity costs. The nuclear family is the fundamental building block of every society and to the extent that the nuclear family is weakened society is weakened. Society suffers an opportunity cost when homosexuals decide to bind one to another instead of forming nuclear families. Every man committed to another man reduces the number of men available to fulfill the function of a man within a nuclear family. If I where a lazy, unproductive and slovenly person, I would certainly suffer the consequences of such behavior to the greatest extent, but society would also suffer the loss of my industry as my labors benefits more then just myself and my family. Every action we take, every choice we make, involves opportunity costs including the choices of homosexuals.
As we live in a free society we can not justly compel the labors of the lazy nor can we force a homosexual to form committed relationships with women. The simple fact that we have rights does not in any way imply that how we choose to exercise those rights has no negative impact on the character or health of the society in which we live. An honorable man does not simply proclaim his rights to justify the gratification of whatever selfish desires he might experience, he understands that freedom does not exist without responsibility.
For these reasons, I favor government programs, especially at the state level, that serve to reinforce a strong nuclear family and I am apposed to those programs or policies that would tend to weaken the same. Extending civil marriage to the homosexual community will do harm to our society so I support the Amendment to our Constitution that would reinforce the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage while denying the same to homosexuals.
Respectfully,
Richard
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Oh my, my, my, my, my.
Is this a thread about the merits and demerits of homosexuality?
On a Firearms Board?
This certainly looks like a thread about the merits and demerits of homosexuality on a Firearms Board.
Oops. WRONG BOARD!
Rich
ps: Simply because the debate has been for the most part civil...this does not dissuade me from my action.
Is this a thread about the merits and demerits of homosexuality?
On a Firearms Board?
This certainly looks like a thread about the merits and demerits of homosexuality on a Firearms Board.
Oops. WRONG BOARD!
Rich
ps: Simply because the debate has been for the most part civil...this does not dissuade me from my action.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.