Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t think any of us would want to go back to 1200, whether man or woman. No penicillin, for one thing.

But I will also say it appears to me there is a lot of mythology going on nowadays about the prior status of women, at least in the West. If you read the literature of the period, the present “Politically correct” view of the terrible status of women in the West, circa 1200, is entirely wrong.

Agreed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is another definition which is continually changing. You may dismiss the idea, at your own peril. But, the one of the most notable trends in the past several centuries, dating to the founding of our country, accelerating though the 1800’s, reaching jet speeds in the 20th century, and now attaining warp speed on this issue, is the relentless expansion of the DEFINITION of what is a “civil right”

This fact underlies the rational basis (to use the legal term) of the legal proponents of gay marriage. Until you come to terms with this, you cannot understand what is happening, in my opinion.

Here’s the thing. No one is denying the civil rights of homosexuals to marry. What we are denying is the change of the definition of marriage.

 

[epan]

Agreed.

Fighting modernity with anachronism does not have a good record of success.

 

[epan]

I don’t think any of us would want to go back to 1200, whether man or woman. No penicillin, for one thing.

But I will also say it appears to me there is a lot of mythology going on nowadays about the prior status of women, at least in the West. If you read the literature of the period, the present “Politically correct” view of the terrible status of women in the West, circa 1200, is entirely wrong.

I wrote a thesis and presented for a class on Elizabethan Erotic Verse. My presentation was on Elizabethan misogyny. My understanding after doing my research is that the situation, even then with Elizabeth reigning, was many times worse for women than is commonly depicted. All of my sources were original writings. It would shock you to understand the prevailing attitudes.

The paper started as a survey of attitudes toward women, and became focused on the pervasive cultural misogyny. It was very hard to even read what people like clerics and academicians would write, and sermonize.

I was an undergrad, but every other student in the course was a grad student. The professor was an expert on that period. He thought that my presentation was spot on, and fair.

 

[josh987654321]

One of my moral rules means that I should not force my morals onto other people. I am responsible for my own actions in my own life; I am not responsible for the actions of others. Christianity has the idea of collective punishment, where a whole group is punished for the actions of a few: all humanity is being punished for Adam and Eve’s transgression. Noah’s flood, Sodom, Egypt’s first born and other examples. Buddhism has nothing like that, we are only responsible for our own actions. It gives a different perspective.

I wont force my morals onto them by forcing them not to enter a homosexual union, but I get upset when they try and force their morals onto us by trying to claim marriage.

Any activity that involves harm to the other or lacks consent is unwise and will lead to suffering. There is an obvious grey area around consensual BDSM.

It causes harm to the Children they plan to raise in a homosexual ‘marriage’ but the act of homosexuality causes only harm to themselves, but it does cause harm to marriage when they try to claim it for such a perverse union.

But is it sufficiently different to require separate treatment in law. Interracial marriage used to be treated differently in law, but it was decided that the difference was not justified. We are seeing a similar change going on at the moment. Yes they are different, but that difference is not seen as justifying different treatment in law.

You are right, the difference between Interracial marriage is not justifed to be treated differently, however it is between a man and a women, but you would have to conclude that there’s a rather large difference between a man and a women and two men or two women that would mean a difference is justified wouldn’t you?

If we are thinking of the same case, then the agency was contracted to the state to provide adoption services in a non-discriminatory manner. Since the agency did not perform according to the contract, then the contract was withdrawn. This was an agency of the church acting as a private business, not as a religious organisation, and it was required to follow standard commercial law and to abide by its contract.

I wonder what the contract said, obey the law? because I doubt when they entered the contract that they had any idea they would be required to adopt out to homosexual couple, and I wonder how many other peoples contracts would change, requiring them to do something they would not do because a contract had changed with the laws on same sex marriage.

You will not be persecuted. You will be required to act within the law when you are acting as a non-religious body. The church can discriminate against women when choosing priests. It cannot do so when acting as an ordinary employer, for example when picking a gardener to look after a cemetery.

Don’t be naive Rossum, if it becomes unlawful to discriminate between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, than what’s to stop them legally persecuting all of those who disagree with the law? what’s to stop the sinner from persecuting the innocent through the law because they refuse to submit to the sin of the law?

Should somebody who illegally discriminates against Catholics be shut down or sued?

Id say it depends on the circumstances, I understand freedom of religion to a degree, but with the adoption agency, I think they had every right to discriminate against a homosexual couple and a hetrosexual couple, I think all adoption agencies should make that disrimination wouldn’t you agree Rossum? or do you seriously think that there is no difference between being raised by two same sex parents and being raised by a mother and a father? because if someone said that I would be no better of with same sex parents or a mother and a father Id be pissed off at them for their Ignorance.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Note: this is a continual page from the above post.

A Catholic school is free to teach Catholic doctrine. It should also teach non-discrimination. Surely that is part of “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

What about those who cannot afford to send their kids to a private school? you do know that if homosexuality and hetrosexuality are viewed as the same in the eye’s of the law, than it would be required to be taught in detail in sex education the way we are taught hetrosexuality? do you really think it’s appropriate to require kids to learn the nature of homosexuality in detail as they do hetrosexuality? Please don’t be naive Rossum, this will be an obvious one that will happen.

There are these people called “parents”, who can teach children. Why do you expect schools to teach everything?

Yup, It’s not that, it’s like what I said above, I wouldn’t want my kids being force to learn the nature of homosexuality as they do hetrosexuality in sex education, would you?

There are far more divorced/separated couples than there are gay married couples, and not all gay couples have children. All of those children only have a parent of one sex living with them most of the time. All of those children will have access to adults of both sexes in school, as teachers, and when visiting their friends in the neighbourhood.

What do you think the point of marriage is? if they can’t get a child through adoption, than they will use surrogacy, I don’t know how you can’t see a problem with that, especially with what I said earlier, and the influence from others is very, very, small compared to the influence of the parents.

In the case of orphans I suggest that it is better to be with a gay couple than to be in an orphanage. It may not be ideal, but it is an improvement.

rossum

I don’t know about that one, but I would definatly say it would be far better to be raised with a hetrosexual union than with a homsoexual union, and if the law treats them as equal than they would see no difference between child raising with the two different unions and that pisses me off as they will not be the ones to suffer from it, it should be obvious with what I said earler that being raised by a homosexual union would have detrimental effects on a poor child’s development, and especially on their sexual development, what is a kid supposed to say to that? to the disordered nature of homosexuality being apparantly normal?

Thank you Rossum for your interesting replies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[epan]

Here’s the thing. No one is denying the civil rights of homosexuals to marry. What we are denying is the change of the definition of marriage.

I don’t understand this. Can you elaborate, please?

Or are you trying the old racial argument, prior to Loving? That, I believe, was the first time that this argument was discredited legally. The claim was made that no civil rights were violated, because they were being applied equally.

The uniformity argument, which you are referring to will not stand up to scrutiny, if gays are a class subject even to intermediate scrutiny. That is a pivotal determination.

Justice Kagan made the point without refutation. There is no other right being denied, or which may be denied on this basis, which would indicate class status. She gave counsel an opportunity to respond, but to no avail. That was the low point of the defense, on my opinion, which otherwise was very well made.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t understand this. Can you elaborate, please?

Or are you trying the old racial argument, prior to Loving? That, I believe, was the first time that this argument was discredited legally. The claim was made that no civil rights were violated, because they were being applied equally.

The uniformity argument, which you are referring to will not stand up to scrutiny, if gays are a class subject even to intermediate scrutiny. That is a pivotal determination.

Justice Kagan made the point without refutation. There is no other right being denied, or which may be denied on this basis, which would indicate class status. She gave counsel an opportunity to respond, but to no avail. That was the low point of the defense, on my opinion, which otherwise was very well made.

I’ll have to get back to you. I’ve got some work to do.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

 

[epan]

Glad you didn’t stay away long.

Prior to when in history did divorce not exist?

Roughly since the 10th century in Europe.

So, then it is just as easy to take the other position, if the goal is to find a point at which the definition of marriage has been radically refined. The point at which the Church was able to redefine marriage as being a permanent contract. During that period, civil courts had no authority to grant divorce, even centuries later with Henry.

My point is that the definition of marriage has been fluid over time and culture. But, and more importantly, in recent times, the roles of gender in marriage has been even more fluid. That is a core issue, which has not been addressed.

I think that the defense of heterosexual marriage has been so narrowly conceived, that it hasn’t a long term chance of success.

As for staying away… What can I say? My job is the best when I am bored. When you don’t hear from me, that usually means that I am very busy patching people up from trauma.

 

[JimG]

The law, of course, does not and cannot deny homosexuals the right to engage in marital relations, because in fact they are incapable of engaging in marital relations. It is that inherent incapacity which makes same sex marriage impossible. They of course have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex as anyone else, since marriage is based upon sexual complementarity.

One does no disservice to a hammer by refusing to use it fasten allen-head screws. The operation is just not possible.

 

[rossum]

You don’t hold yourself responsible for setting a good example?

I do and I do, as far as I can. I am far from perfect.

What about stopping someone from harming another. Is that your responsibility?

Within limits: “Fighting for peace is like fornicating for chastity.”

How do you determine harm or consent? As we have seen, the age of consent regarding sex is different in different states.

The laws on age of consent seem to be generally reasonable. I see no great need to change them.

Some groups want to lower it to under 12.

It was 12 in the UK until 1885, see the Eliza Armstrong case. I very much doubt if there is political support now for lowering it back again. I would point out that 12 is a lot closer to the historical/traditional age of consent than is modern practice. That is one area where the definition of marriage has changed, and for the good I think.

We are seeing a CHANGE in the definition of marriage from “a union between one man and one woman” to being “between two loving and consenting people.”

We are seeing a change in the definition of civil marriage. We are not seeing a change in the definition of Catholic marriage. The two are different, and have been different for some time.

Why is HHS forcing Catholic institutions to go against their doctrines under the healthcare mandate?

Because a “Catholic institution” is not the Catholic church; it is a private business and must follow the same rules as other private businesses. The Church has doctrines; a private business does not have doctrines.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You start off rejecting the correct use of the word “designed”. You did not create yourself, you were created.

I am not Christian. You should not assume that I will automatically agree with Christian doctrines. We were not created, scripture tells me that we were not. You have read the Tripitaka, haven’t you?

Christians do accept homosexuality as immoral, and hopefully this country will continue to be guided by the Judeo-Christian values, principles and philosophy upon which it was founded.

I live in the UK, not in America. Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions. You might also want to read the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (emphasis added)

rossum

 

[epan]

The law, of course, does not and cannot deny homosexuals the right to engage in marital relations, because in fact they are incapable of engaging in marital relations. It is that inherent incapacity which makes same sex marriage impossible. They of course have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex as anyone else, since marriage is based upon sexual complementarity.

One does no disservice to a hammer by refusing to use it fasten allen-head screws. The operation is just not possible.

When you say marital relations, are you referring to the obligations in marriage under civil law, or those under canon law?

It seems that people want it both ways.

I don’t expect any sweeping decision from the Court legalizing gay marriage. My clear sense from the questions and statements by the Justices was that they are reticent to take such a radical step.

But one issue kept recurring which both counsels avoided, which was the federalism question. The Justices practically begged counsel to address it for them. Both counsels avoided any direct answers. I think that the Justices were hoping that Cooper would say, “no, the Court does not have the authority to make such a determination. It is a state matter”

Olsen was not about to say that, of course.

Another interesting angle on this is that many liberals are hoping that the court will fail to act, because they see this as a way to remove Republicans from office. If the Court forces the issue, then the Republicans can express their disapproval, and breathe a sigh of relief. However, if little is done, then they will have the hot potato back, and will not know what to do in the next election cycle as the tide of public opinion continues to shift.

 

[rossum]

I wont force my morals onto them by forcing them not to enter a homosexual union, but I get upset when they try and force their morals onto us by trying to claim marriage.

Since when was the definition of civil marriage a moral issue? Did the original anti-miscegenation law in Virginia “force their morals” onto Catholics, or did its repeal by Loving v Virginia “force their morals” onto Catholics? Definitions of civil marriage have changed reasonably frequently in the past. Did you see the introduction of divorce as a forcing of morals onto Catholics? I know that the Church disagrees with divorce, but I don’t see a great deal of protest about it. The Church seems to be prepared to let civil marriage go one way while Catholic marriage pursues a different course.

…that would mean a difference is justified wouldn’t you?

No, I do not see it as a sufficient justification.

I wonder what the contract said, obey the law?

IIRC, exactly that. In this case anti-discrimination laws and the laws allowing single people and same sex couples to adopt. If they don’t follow the law, as specified in the contract, then they don’t get the contract. At the very least they won’t get the contract renewed when it comes up.

Don’t be naive Rossum, if it becomes unlawful to discriminate between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, than what’s to stop them legally persecuting all of those who disagree with the law? what’s to stop the sinner from persecuting the innocent through the law because they refuse to submit to the sin of the law?

How many Catholic churches have been prosecuted for failing to marry a divorced couple? You can get back to me when you have an example to show me. I am not being naive, I am merely observing what is currently happening in a parallel example of the difference between civil and Catholic marriage.

I think all adoption agencies should make that disrimination wouldn’t you agree Rossum?

You should know by now that I do not agree.

or do you seriously think that there is no difference between being raised by two same sex parents and being raised by a mother and a father?

How does that apply to children that are up for adoption? By definition, children that are up for adoption are lacking one or both parents, or have parents who are unable to look after them. Having two same-sex parents is better than having no parents.

What about those who cannot afford to send their kids to a private school?

Home-schooling.

What do you think the point of marriage is?

There are many points. Does every childless couple adopt? How many married sixty-year-old couples with no young children of their own have adopted?

if they can’t get a child through adoption, than they will use surrogacy

False. I cannot think of one gay couple that I know who have adopted children. There are heterosexual married couples I know who have no children. People are a lot more diverse in their motivations than you seem to be allowing.

rossum

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Enshrining gay marriage into law intentionally deprives children of the right to grow up with a mother and a father into law, by the redefinition of parenthood.

There is no such right in this country and neither is parenthood linked to marriage. Such a thing may be the preferred moral situation but it is not the reality of it nor is it a matter of law.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wrote a thesis and presented for a class on Elizabethan Erotic Verse. My presentation was on Elizabethan misogyny. My understanding after doing my research is that the situation, even then with Elizabeth reigning, was many times worse for women than is commonly depicted. All of my sources were original writings. It would shock you to understand the prevailing attitudes.

The paper started as a survey of attitudes toward women, and became focused on the pervasive cultural misogyny. It was very hard to even read what people like clerics and academicians would write, and sermonize.

I was an undergrad, but every other student in the course was a grad student. The professor was an expert on that period. He thought that my presentation was spot on, and fair.

1200 was not in the “Elizabethan period”, which was centuries later.

If your paper was about Elizabethan misogyny, either you or the professors selected the topic. Either way, there was a belief going in or it would not have been the subject of the research or the paper. There can be little doubt that if one wants to find misogyny in the writings of clerics and academicians, he’ll find it. The same would be true today.

I, too, wrote many a research paper with a point of view, and I know how it works. I get it. Want to present a point of view, and have the energy and intelligence to get evidence to support it, and you’ll succeed with the paper or the debate. One does need to be careful not to believe one’s own product overmuch, of course.

And most erotic anything is abusive of its very nature, then as now. And the women were every bit as ribald or saintly as the men, perhaps more so than now as to both.

However, if one looks at the literature of various periods (and you were talking initially about the year 1200, not the Elizabethan period) one can reasonably assume the writers are describing things fairly accurately or their work would not have been popular at the time, let alone stood the test of time. If one looks at Shakespeare, for example, (and understands well enough to know a lot of it is farcical…said for laughs) which really was written in the Elizabethan period, one does not find massive male domination or cruelty toward women. The women give as good as they get in the exchanges. They are represented as often witty, as sometimes controlling, as sometimes cruel, as often outsmarting and outmaneuvering males, as having wealth and engaging in trade. And yes, as sometimes stupid or victimized, just as sometimes the males are.

Going back a bit before the Elizabethan era, could anyone describe Chaucer’s Wife of Bath as downtrodden, poverty-stricken or lacking independence without seeming ridiculous?

Of course, those times were often brutish regardless of one’s gender. If one reads about the lives of common soldiers, landless peasants, sailors, apprentices, servitors of all sorts, debtors, people condemned to servitude, it could be a mighty tough life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is no such right in this country and neither is parenthood linked to marriage. Such a thing may be the preferred moral situation but it is not the reality of it nor is it a matter of law.

Actually, the right of a child to be raised by both a mother and father is protected by law, but in a limited way, and perhaps not everywhere.

Divorce laws and paternity laws relating to child custody and visitation usually explicitly set out that right. Of course, in that context, it’s hardly ideal, but it’s right there in the laws themselves.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Actually, the right of a child to be raised by both a mother and father is protected by law, but in a limited way, and perhaps not everywhere.Divorce laws and paternity laws relating to child custody and visitation usually explicitly set out that right. Of course, in that context, it’s hardly ideal, but it’s right there in the laws themselves.

These are not the rights of a child; they are the (limited) rights of the parents. A child has no right to be raised by both a mother and father. A parent has the (limited) right to raise a child if they so choose. If the reverse were true then the law would make joint-custody mandatory rather than optional.

 

[JimG]

When you say marital relations, are you referring to the obligations in marriage under civil law, or those under canon law?

Neither. I’m speaking of simple anatomy, and the ability of man and woman to engage in marital relations because that is the way they are made. Same sex partners cannot engage in marital relations. So there can be no marriage.

It is rather astonishing that there is an attempt to equate sodomy with marital relations. They are not and never have been the same. Marital relations are only possible between men and women.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Neither. I’m speaking of simple anatomy, and the ability of man and woman to engage in marital relations because that is the way they are made. Same sex partners cannot engage in marital relations. So there can be no marriage. It is rather astonishing that there is an attempt to equate sodomy with marital relations. They are not and never have been the same. Marital relations are only possible between men and women.

So the answer is canon law. Heterosexual sex is not a requirement for marriage under civil law.