Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[Publisher]

Indeed. You are now making my argument. Thank you.

???

 

[Publisher]

On the surface the arguments and reasons are the same, maybe. But, the opposition to interracial marriage were far nastier than those against same-sex marriage. Homosexuals have NEVER had it as hard as Blacks in this country (or Catholics for that matter).

Just because the arguments sound the same to you, does not mean they are false in both circumstances. With interracial marriage they were arguing against a superficial trait that was used to characterize an entire population of people. Sex is not a superficial trait. Men and women are not biologically interchangable.

The same arguments you use as examples could also be used against inter-species marriage or adult/child marriages and I don’t doubt that those same couples would experience discrimination, but it doesn’t mean that the arguments against such arrangements would be wrong.

But we are NOT discusssing inter-species “marriage” or adult/child “marriage”…to use the well worn phrase of Catholics…“apples and oranges”…how quickly that arguement is “thrown out the window” when it’s convienient.

We are discussing the Constitionality of same sex marriage and how the reasoning of denying marriage to same sex couples was used also by the opponents of inter-racial marriage. We are discussing the decisions of consenting adults to determine their lives…not the victimization of an adult upon a child or animal.

 

[bellasbane]

Indeed. You are now making my argument. Thank you.

Or, do you think they shouldn’t have imposed their religious beliefs?

Justice and equality under the law are not religious beliefs. They do not have their source in religion - rather they have been adopted by religions.

 

[rlg94086]

???

Slavery was legal, according to the “secular government.” Abolitionists, such as the Quakers you mentioned, did everything they could to impose their beliefs.

 

[Publisher]

Slavery was legal, according to the “secular government.” Abolitionists, such as the Quakers you mentioned, did everything they could to impose their beliefs.

Ahh…yet you stated I probably would not have engaged in such an endeavor. Which is it…I would…or I wouldn’t?

Those Friends who chose to disobey and help free their brothers and sisters from lives of toil and misery…beatings…rapes…suffering were willing to accept the penalties imposed upon them by secular law if caught…not only willing…but indeed did…if you feel so moved to disobey a law you feel is undjust that causes untold human suffering and misery…by all means do so.

The similarity I see…and a small similarity it is…as Friends sought to allow those enslaved by others exercise the determination of living their lives in freedom and self determination…so too…I seek to insure that same sex couples who wish to enjoy the benefits of marriage in a secular society.

I am not seeking to impose my beliefs upon same sex couples…I am against the discrimination and restriction of their freedoms…no one is saying you cannot hold your beliefs…and exercise them…just do not impose those beliefs upon those who do not hold them in secular society.

If my hypothetical involvement in the abolution of slavery of a bygone era somehow nullifies my arguement in your eyes toward the acceptance of same sex marriage…in my eyes, I see the similarity between the hypothetical life I would have lived in the 19th century with my life now in the 21st century…you have that right friend.

 

[bellasbane]

Slavery was legal, according to the “secular government.” Abolitionists, such as the Quakers you mentioned, did everything they could to impose their beliefs.

People can be motivated to act based on their religious convictions, but in the end they will have to produce a secular legal argument to justify discrimination under the law. So far, you have failed to do that, because like “Gay-Catholic-Marriage” such arguments simply do not exist.

 

[Publisher]

People can be motivated to act based on their religious convictions, but in the end they will have to produce a secular legal argument to justify discrimination under the law. So far, you have failed to do that, because like “Gay-Catholic-Marriage” such arguments simply do not exist.

Thank you…exactly what I was trying to convey…in my very awkward and inept way.

 

[Publisher]

Slavery was legal, according to the “secular government.” Abolitionists, such as the Quakers you mentioned, did everything they could to impose their beliefs.

Just on a side note…one of the reasons I chose to be a Friend is because of the involvement of one of my ancestors in the Underground Railroad…himself a convinced Friend. It was a “confirmation” to me I had sought from the Lord.

 

[JimG]

The REALITY would be however that by law the stones ARE rational and Kansas IS viewed as mountainous…and if any who declare it to be so can now receive the benefits of that law would be able to do so.

That’s pretty much what we have come to. But when a whole society becomes irrational it cannot last long. George Orwell predicted the effects, but I think he underestimated them.

 

[Publisher]

That’s pretty much what we have come to. But when a whole society becomes irrational it cannot last long.

Yes…we have been warned that “the end will come” for millenia…and still we are here seeking to make this a fit world for the Kingdom of God…we will continue to make this world a fit habitation for the King…we have a long way to go before our world is ready to receive the King again.

 

[bellasbane]

Thank you…exactly what I was trying to convey…in my very awkward and inept way.

You write from the heart and anyone with a heart can easily hear what you are saying.

 

[Befink]

Hi Math,

This is the classic truth vs. love issue. *Following love IS that simple. *God is love. *We know that from scripture as well as how we experience him. *At this stage, all is fully revealed. *We’re not expecting anyone to come from heaven to explain their teachings on various issues anymore. *The church does it’s part to explain all to us. *It’s essential that they use secular arguments when they’re out in the mainstream world arguing for political change. *They have not done this well. *That’s not just my view but the view of the court system and the majority of Americans as well as majority of Catholics.

Teachings exist to bring us closer to Christ. *Seeing faith as rules we follow because we believe they bring salvation is religious but not spiritual. *If a rule is not bringing us closer too Him, we should not follow it, especially when it violates one’s conscience. *There are significant drawbacks to both the conservative and liberal approaches since neither is truly at peace (why I want to talk about those podcasts regarding happiness when we meet next).

It’s funny that so much of the 14 pages on this thread have been about arguing whether the court’s definition of marriage is the religious one we know or not. *If that were the issue it would simplify things greatly. *The church is also against civil unions of homosexuals as well as their right to adopt. *If it’s purely about the act then how can they take this position? *Such a law would make no distinction between gays who abstain from sex and those that do not. *The church is operating outside its own doctrine and sacrament when it takes that stand. *Secular arguments are needed, or they need to advocate for all legal rights of gay couples and a separation of the legal and religious definitions of the term “marriage”. *Or we can chose a new word for the sacrament. *There must be some Latin word we haven’t used that nobody else understands

We’ve also discussed this idea that the Church and God are one and the same. *If that were true then the church would always exemplify love (since God is love) in everything they do. *Unfortunately, they have fallen short at times. *They have not done what Jesus would do (this was hashed out on another thread you saw of mine). *Obviously the majority of Catholics believe this, otherwise you would have a much easier time finding people you like in the Catholic community (or at least an RCIA class you like ). *The church recognizes this and has chosen to tolerate it. *Imagine the consequences if they didn’t.

 

[rlg94086]

Ahh…yet you stated I probably would not have engaged in such an endeavor. Which is it…I would…or I wouldn’t?

I “stated” no such thing. I asked a question…thus the use of a question mark. You are apparently in favor of imposing religious views you agree with. Funny how that works.

 

[hazmat]

Again, there is no comparison. Quit embarrassing yourself.

i just compared them. many do. im not embarrassed. lol

 

[rlg94086]

People can be motivated to act based on their religious convictions, but in the end they will** have to produce a secular legal argument** to justify discrimination under the law. So far, you have failed to do that, because like “Gay-Catholic-Marriage” such arguments simply do not exist.

They’ve been presented many times. You reject them, just as you have rejected Church teaching on the matter. What else is new?

 

[rlg94086]

Just on a side note…one of the reasons I chose to be a Friend is because of the involvement of one of my ancestors in the Underground Railroad…himself a convinced Friend. It was a “confirmation” to me I had sought from the Lord.

They did the right thing. They fought to “impose their religious view” against the “secular government’s” laws which allowed enslavement of human beings. The same “secular government” you now hold as superior to religious views.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s pretty much what we have come to. But when a whole society becomes irrational it cannot last long. George Orwell predicted the effects, but I think he underestimated them.

 

[Dawnia]

But we are NOT discusssing inter-species “marriage” or adult/child “marriage”…to use the well worn phrase of Catholics…“apples and oranges”…how quickly that arguement is “thrown out the window” when it’s convienient.

We are discussing the Constitionality of same sex marriage and how the reasoning of denying marriage to same sex couples was used also by the opponents of inter-racial marriage. We are discussing the decisions of consenting adults to determine their lives…not the victimization of an adult upon a child or animal.

Try reading what I wrote before replying. I was NOT discussing those, mearly pointing out that the arguments could be used in multiple situations. Just because the arguments are the same, does not make those arguments wrong. Seriously, reading comprehension is not that difficult.

 

[Publisher]

I “stated” no such thing. I asked a question…thus the use of a question mark. You are apparently in favor of imposing religious views you agree with. Funny how that works.

Thank you for the correction friend…I apologize for my mis-characterization of your statement.

 

[Publisher]

Try reading what I wrote before replying. I was NOT discussing those, mearly pointing out that the arguments could be used in multiple situations. Just because the arguments are the same, does not make those arguments wrong. Seriously, reading comprehension is not that difficult.

Neither is courtesy …but that is lacking here at times as well as my reading skills.