PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon push to extend benefits to same-sex couples stirs debate



Pages : [1] 2

ptif219
02-24-2013, 10:38 AM
Here come the special rights for a liberal special interest group. If they give these benefits to gay couples it should also apply to opposite sex couples

Stop the special rights for so called special interest groups. Rights should not be limited to just one group


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/22/pentagon-push-to-extend-benefits-to-same-sex-couples-stirs-debate/




Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has directed Pentagon personnel to immediately begin efforts to extend certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members. But the move has sparked a heated debate, with critics arguing the policy gives special treatment to one class and winds up discriminating against others.
"I think this does qualify as discrimination against opposite sex couples who are essentially in the same position, unmarried by living together," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
In its own 2010 report on the impact of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- which banned gays from serving openly in the military -- the Pentagon warned against the scenario which is now playing out.
"If ... the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department ... itself would be creating a new inequity -- between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples," the report said.
The report goes on to state that the "new inequity," or even the perception of preferential treatment, would stand in stark contrast to the military's "ethic of fair and equal treatment."

Chloe
02-24-2013, 10:58 AM
in my opinion the difference is that the opposite sex couple is allowed to be legally married in order to get benefits as a married couple, whereas the gay couple is already discriminated against by not being allowed to be married in order to get certain benefits that a married couple would be able to enjoy and have. By not allowing gay marriage you automatically cast the gay couple as a permanent boyfriend status and not as a spouse basically denying them the same benefits a straight married couple could have in any situation including in the case within the military. That in itself is discrimination in my opinion. If anybody is considered second class it isn't the straight couple, and gay people aren't a special interest group they are simply human beings that want equal rights and recognition. straight domestic partners choose not to be married even though they are allowed to be if they wanted to, gay people don't have the choice. They are denied based on prejudice, there's a difference.

ptif219
02-24-2013, 11:11 AM
in my opinion the difference is that the opposite sex couple is allowed to be legally married in order to get benefits as a married couple, whereas the gay couple is already discriminated against by not being allowed to be married in order to get certain benefits that a married couple would be able to enjoy and have. By not allowing gay marriage you automatically cast the gay couple as a permanent boyfriend status and not as a spouse basically denying them the same benefits a straight married couple could have in any situation including in the case within the military. That in itself is discrimination in my opinion. If anybody is considered second class it isn't the straight couple, and gay people aren't a special interest group they are simply human beings that want equal rights and recognition. straight domestic partners choose not to be married even though they are allowed to be if they wanted to, gay people don't have the choice. They are denied based on prejudice, there's a difference.

That is not a military issue. If gays get it heterosexual couples also should get it. There should be no special rights only for gays

Peter1469
02-24-2013, 12:27 PM
That is not a military issue. If gays get it heterosexual couples also should get it. There should be no special rights only for gays

That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

oceanloverOH
02-24-2013, 12:37 PM
That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

I do not personally agree with that lifestyle choice, but I support anyone's right to make that choice. I don't understand what the big deal is in passing a law to allow gays to marry. Any two people who desire it should be allowed to legally commit via civil union or marriage, which would entitle everyone to the same benefits, in the same situations. Why not? Who would it hurt? Certain ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious types just need to shut the hell up, lose their holier-than-thou attitude, pass the damn law and be done with it, end of issue.

ptif219
02-24-2013, 06:10 PM
That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

They have that

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/09/30/332893/pentagon-to-allow-military-chaplains-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-in-some-states/?mobile=nc

ptif219
02-24-2013, 06:11 PM
I do not personally agree with that lifestyle choice, but I support anyone's right to make that choice. I don't understand what the big deal is in passing a law to allow gays to marry. Any two people who desire it should be allowed to legally commit via civil union or marriage, which would entitle everyone to the same benefits, in the same situations. Why not? Who would it hurt? Certain ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious types just need to shut the hell up, lose their holier-than-thou attitude, pass the damn law and be done with it, end of issue.

The other alternative give all couples the same benefits

Dr. Who
02-24-2013, 10:37 PM
They have that

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/09/30/332893/pentagon-to-allow-military-chaplains-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-in-some-states/?mobile=nc
As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut), Iowa (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa), Maine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine), Maryland (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maryland), Massachusetts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts), New Hampshire (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire), New York (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York), Vermont (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont), and Washington (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington)—as well as the District of Columbia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia), representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population) and two Native American tribes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdicti ons)[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-1)—have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Rhode_Island) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions,[2] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-freedomtomarry1-2)[3] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-riex-3) and California (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California), which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.
[/URL]
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: [URL="http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Alaska"]Alaska (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-4) (1917), Arizona (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Arizona) (1913), California (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/California) (1895), Florida (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Florida) (1968), Georgia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)) (1997), Hawaii (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Hawaii) (1920), Idaho (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Idaho) (1996), Illinois (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Illinois) (1905), Indiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Indiana) (1958), Kentucky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Kentucky) (1852), Maine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Maine) (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Massachusetts) (1646), Michigan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Michigan) (1957), Minnesota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Minnesota) (1941), Mississippi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Mississippi) (1956), Missouri (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Missouri) (1921), Nebraska (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Nebraska) (1923), Nevada (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Nevada) (1943), New Mexico (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_Mexico) (1860), New Jersey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_Jersey) (1939), New York (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_York) (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/North_Dakota) (1890), Ohio (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ohio) (1991), Oklahoma (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Oklahoma) (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Pennsylvania) (2005), South Dakota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/South_Dakota) (1959), and Wisconsin (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Wisconsin) (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Arkansas), Connecticut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Connecticut), Delaware (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Delaware), Louisiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Louisiana), Maryland (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Maryland), North Carolina (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/North_Carolina), Oregon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Oregon), Tennessee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Tennessee), Vermont (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Vermont), Virginia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Virginia), Washington (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Washington_(U.S._state)), West Virginia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/West_Virginia), and Wyoming (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Wyoming). Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Louisiana), which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Council_of_Trent) jurisdiction.

So where does that leave same sex couples in the other 85% of the US.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 12:12 AM
As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut), Iowa (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa), Maine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine), Maryland (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maryland), Massachusetts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts), New Hampshire (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire), New York (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York), Vermont (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont), and Washington (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington)—as well as the District of Columbia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia), representing 15.7% of the US population (based on 2011 population) and two Native American tribes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdicti ons)[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-1)—have legalized same-sex marriage. In addition, Rhode Island (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Rhode_Island) recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions,[2] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-freedomtomarry1-2)[3] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-riex-3) and California (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California), which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Alaska) (1917), Arizona (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Arizona) (1913), California (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/California) (1895), Florida (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Florida) (1968), Georgia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)) (1997), Hawaii (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Hawaii) (1920), Idaho (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Idaho) (1996), Illinois (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Illinois) (1905), Indiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Indiana) (1958), Kentucky (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Kentucky) (1852), Maine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Maine) (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Massachusetts) (1646), Michigan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Michigan) (1957), Minnesota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Minnesota) (1941), Mississippi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Mississippi) (1956), Missouri (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Missouri) (1921), Nebraska (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Nebraska) (1923), Nevada (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Nevada) (1943), New Mexico (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_Mexico) (1860), New Jersey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_Jersey) (1939), New York (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/New_York) (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/North_Dakota) (1890), Ohio (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ohio) (1991), Oklahoma (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Oklahoma) (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Pennsylvania) (2005), South Dakota (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/South_Dakota) (1959), and Wisconsin (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Wisconsin) (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Arkansas), Connecticut (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Connecticut), Delaware (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Delaware), Louisiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Louisiana), Maryland (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Maryland), North Carolina (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/North_Carolina), Oregon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Oregon), Tennessee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Tennessee), Vermont (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Vermont), Virginia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Virginia), Washington (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Washington_(U.S._state)), West Virginia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/West_Virginia), and Wyoming (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Wyoming). Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Louisiana), which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Council_of_Trent) jurisdiction.

So where does that leave same sex couples in the other 85% of the US.

Should we cry? Creating more discrimination is your answer? That makes no sense and will only create more disdain for gays because they are being given special rights. This is Obama bowing to a special interest group

Chris
02-25-2013, 06:09 AM
That is a valid point. Gay marriage or some equivlent would solve that.

True, except gays aren't asking for "gay marriage" just marriage.

Chris
02-25-2013, 06:44 AM
To clarify, I think it true that gay couples should not get special privileges, protections and penalties that straight couples do not.

Conversely, straight couples should not get special privileges, protections and penalties that gay couples do not, like marriage.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:44 AM
To clarify, I think it true that gay couples should not get special privileges, protections and penalties that straight couples do not.

Conversely, straight couples should not get special privileges, protections and penalties that gay couples do not, like marriage.

Gays can get married. I do not know of any state where gay marriage is illegal

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:57 AM
Gays can get married. I do not know of any state where gay marriage is illegal

Exactly. They can get married whenever they want and some of them do just that.

oceanloverOH
02-25-2013, 09:46 AM
Gays can get married. I do not know of any state where gay marriage is illegal

Illegal? No. But many states do not reconize a marriage between two adults of the same sex and will therefore not allow any government benefits to apply to them (i.e. death benefits, social security benefits, etc.) And this is what gays want and deserve as tax-paying citizens....equality in the eyes of the law.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 09:50 AM
Exactly. They can get married whenever they want and some of them do just that.

Except the difference is that their "marriage" in like 95% of the country counts as much as two 8 year olds pretending that they are married while playing house.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:56 AM
Except the difference is that their "marriage" in like 95% of the country counts as much as two 8 year olds pretending that they are married while playing house.

Right. That's how I see it. Gays are playing at getting married. The only difference is that, unlike many of you, I don't think it's cute.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. If gay radicals want to change that then I expect them to admit what they're doing and stop pretending their rights are being denied. The "marriage equality" crusade is steeped in dishonesty.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:11 AM
Gays can get married. I do not know of any state where gay marriage is illegal

Most states it's illegal. I believe last count only 6 allowed.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:12 AM
Illegal? No. But many states do not reconize a marriage between two adults of the same sex and will therefore not allow any government benefits to apply to them (i.e. death benefits, social security benefits, etc.) And this is what gays want and deserve as tax-paying citizens....equality in the eyes of the law.

Exactly, and that is discriminatory special rights.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 10:16 AM
Right. That's how I see it. Gays are playing at getting married. The only difference is that, unlike many of you, I don't think it's cute.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. If gay radicals want to change that then I expect them to admit what they're doing and stop pretending their rights are being denied. The "marriage equality" crusade is steeped in dishonesty.

I didn't at all mean it that way. My point was that the majority of states don't recognize their marriage, which is totally wrong in my opinion. I wasn't saying they were pretending to be cute. I said that the states recognize their marriage on the same level as two kids playing. You can't say they have equal rights when they are looked down on and kept away from something as meaningful as marriage.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:23 AM
Right. That's how I see it. Gays are playing at getting married. The only difference is that, unlike many of you, I don't think it's cute.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. If gay radicals want to change that then I expect them to admit what they're doing and stop pretending their rights are being denied. The "marriage equality" crusade is steeped in dishonesty.

That's your personal definition. That's not society's.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 10:25 AM
That's your personal definition. That's not society's.

And two gay people wanting to get married are also not "radical," they just want fair and equal treatment. Thanks for your stance on this!

Mister D
02-25-2013, 10:33 AM
That's your personal definition. That's not society's.

It's the definition millenia of tradition and custom have bestowed on it.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 10:34 AM
And two gay people wanting to get married are also not "radical," they just want fair and equal treatment. Thanks for your stance on this!

They already have it.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 10:37 AM
I didn't at all mean it that way. My point was that the majority of states don't recognize their marriage, which is totally wrong in my opinion. I wasn't saying they were pretending to be cute. I said that the states recognize their marriage on the same level as two kids playing. You can't say they have equal rights when they are looked down on and kept away from something as meaningful as marriage.

I know you didn't mean it that way but I did. Gays like to play house, apparently. I just don't find it particularly cute.

Marriage is very meaningful to gays. Indeed, this is about social acceptance not rights.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:56 AM
It's the definition millenia of tradition and custom have bestowed on it.

No it's not. It's merely your preferred definition

Mister D
02-25-2013, 11:09 AM
No it's not. It's merely your preferred definition

Yes, it is. Whether I prefer it or not is immaterial. What you and gays seek to do is to redefine an institution to suit a fad.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 11:19 AM
Yes, it is. Whether I prefer it or not is immaterial. What you and gays seek to do is to redefine an institution to suit a fad.

Two people who love each other and want to show that through marriage is a fad??? Skinny jeans on guys is a fad.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 11:28 AM
Two people who love each other and want to show that through marriage is a fad??? Skinny jeans on guys is a fad.

You're making an emotional appeal, Chole. Yes, it's a fad. It's a whim. It's pure emotion and utterly lacking in substance. Secondly, why do they need to show this love to the whole world? You sort of get it but you haven't quite put it together yet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights and equality. It's about changing perceptions. It's about acceptance. That's why just loving each other won't cut it. That's why it needs official recognition.

Look, just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Chris
02-25-2013, 11:31 AM
Yes, it is. Whether I prefer it or not is immaterial. What you and gays seek to do is to redefine an institution to suit a fad.

You're counting on historical records of laws elites made against gays marrying. But that actually implies it was common, just that the elites didn't approve.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 11:37 AM
You're counting on historical records of laws elites made against gays marrying. But that actually implies it was common, just that the elites didn't approve.

I haven't referenced a single law. There is no need to.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 11:40 AM
Illegal? No. But many states do not reconize a marriage between two adults of the same sex and will therefore not allow any government benefits to apply to them (i.e. death benefits, social security benefits, etc.) And this is what gays want and deserve as tax-paying citizens....equality in the eyes of the law.

Then gays should be mad what the military is doing. Gays should not want special benefits that discriminate against others. Gays should be mad that the Obama is playing politics in the military instead of changing federal law.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 11:41 AM
Except the difference is that their "marriage" in like 95% of the country counts as much as two 8 year olds pretending that they are married while playing house.

This military policy does not change that it just creates discrimination for others

ptif219
02-25-2013, 11:42 AM
Most states it's illegal. I believe last count only 6 allowed.

Not illegal just not recoginozed

ptif219
02-25-2013, 11:47 AM
And two gay people wanting to get married are also not "radical," they just want fair and equal treatment. Thanks for your stance on this!

No they want to come against the Christian covenant with God called marriage. Homosexuality is an abomination to God and Gays want to abominate his covenant called marriage. That is why they will never accept civil unions

Mister D
02-25-2013, 11:59 AM
No they want to come against the Christian covenant with God called marriage. Homosexuality is an abomination to God and Gays want to abominate his covenant called marriage. That is why they will never accept civil unions

Religious arguments are not likely to persuade but I can sympathize with you. It seems to me that there is an intention here to further fragment western societies.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 12:18 PM
No they want to come against the Christian covenant with God called marriage. Homosexuality is an abomination to God and Gays want to abominate his covenant called marriage. That is why they will never accept civil unions

You know, my religion (Judaism) has existed long before yours, and marriage was around even before that. Marriage is not a Christian invention.

Cigar
02-25-2013, 12:21 PM
You know, my religion (Judaism) has existed long before yours, and marriage was around even before that. Marriage is not a Christian invention.

But they sure perfected Divorce :)

nic34
02-25-2013, 12:45 PM
You're making an emotional appeal, Chole. Yes, it's a fad. It's a whim. It's pure emotion and utterly lacking in substance. Secondly, why do they need to show this love to the whole world? You sort of get it but you haven't quite put it together yet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights and equality. It's about changing perceptions. It's about acceptance. That's why just loving each other won't cut it. That's why it needs official recognition.

Look, just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

Cigar
02-25-2013, 12:48 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

Most people would think Male Priest and Little Boys aren't normal... but it's becoming common place.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 12:57 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

Actually, homosexuality is extremely rare in the Animal Kingdom if it can be said to exist at all. You're confusing someone's interpretation of animal behavior with a human sexual orientation. In any case, I didn't say that homosexuality is a fad. I said that the push for gay marriage is a fad. It is also indicative of a society and an ideology in its death throes.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 12:57 PM
Most people would think Male Priest and Little Boys aren't normal... but it's becoming common place.

Cigar seems obsessed with pedophilia. It's never far from his mind...

KC
02-25-2013, 12:57 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

I'm certainly not an opponent of gay marriage or homosexuality, but I think there is a real problem with the naturalistic argument. Is something good because it is natural? The fact that something is natural does not convince me and really shouldn't convince anyone that the thing is morally right or justified.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 12:58 PM
I'm certainly not an opponent of gay marriage or homosexuality, but I think there is a real problem with the naturalistic argument. Is something good because it is natural? The fact that something is natural does not convince me and really shouldn't convince anyone that the thing is morally right or justified.

Right. Some species eat their young, for example.

killianr1
02-25-2013, 01:08 PM
I'm certainly not an opponent of gay marriage or homosexuality, but I think there is a real problem with the naturalistic argument. Is something good because it is natural? The fact that something is natural does not convince me and really shouldn't convince anyone that the thing is morally right or justified.

What is morally right for you may not be morally right for me. So let us try to avoid imposing our morality upon one another. It ususally doesn't work anyway.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 01:10 PM
.

What is morally right for you may not be morally right for me. So let us try to avoid imposing our morality upon one another. It ususally doesn't work anyway.

Sure it does. The problem is that your society is utterly diseased. See ya at the next mass murder.

KC
02-25-2013, 01:17 PM
.

What is morally right for you may not be morally right for me. So let us try to avoid imposing our morality upon one another. It ususally doesn't work anyway.

Who said anything at all about imposing morality? I didn't even make any claims about what is moral. My argument is that whether or not something is natural is irrelevant to our evaluations about morality. Natural-ness is an insufficient condition for what is moral.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 01:20 PM
I don't understand how two gay men or two gay women getting married and sharing the same love and marital benefits as a straight married couple would have affects any of you negatively.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 01:23 PM
I don't understand how two gay men or two gay women getting married and sharing the same love and marital benefits as a straight married couple would have affects any of you negatively.

Similarly, I don't understand how famine and disease in Africa affects me negatively. Rest assured, however, that I don't make my judgments on how something affects me personally.

nic34
02-25-2013, 01:31 PM
I'm certainly not an opponent of gay marriage or homosexuality, but I think there is a real problem with the naturalistic argument. Is something good because it is natural? The fact that something is natural does not convince me and really shouldn't convince anyone that the thing is morally right or justified.

The problem is that many people do not BELIEVE it is normal, but that it can somehow be learned or force upon another.

Homosexuals no more choose which sex they are attracted to than heterosexuals choose which sex they are attracted to.

Chris
02-25-2013, 01:48 PM
Not illegal just not recoginozed

Same thing. Legal recognition is special treatment. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

KC
02-25-2013, 01:54 PM
The problem is that many people do not BELIEVE it is normal, but that it can somehow be learned or force upon another.

Homosexuals no more choose which sex they are attracted to than heterosexuals choose which sex they are attracted to.

Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that normal means common. Statistically at least, homosexuality is extremely uncommon. Gallup estimates American homosexuals at 3.4% (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_are_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_surve y_says_3_4_percent.html), but we should be skeptical of their ability to be accurate when the subject is so personal and controversial.

Regardless, I agree that gay people probably don't choose who they are attracted to, I just don't think that it's important or relevant whether their behavior is normal or prevalent in the natural world.

Chris
02-25-2013, 01:58 PM
I haven't referenced a single law. There is no need to.

In fact you've referenced nothing but your preferred interpretation of hisotory.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:02 PM
In fact you've referenced nothing but your preferred interpretation of hisotory.

I'm not sure what drives you to do this but feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. Fact: marriage has been defined by millenia of custom and tradition. It is between a male and a female. This is true of our Christian past, our pagan past, and our prehistoric past. Now if you have an argument then make it. if not, accept reality.

nic34
02-25-2013, 02:05 PM
Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that normal means common. Statistically at least, homosexuality is extremely uncommon. Gallup estimates American homosexuals at 3.4% (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_are_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_surve y_says_3_4_percent.html), but we should be skeptical of their ability to be accurate when the subject is so personal and controversial.

Regardless, I agree that gay people probably don't choose who they are attracted to, I just don't think that it's important or relevant whether their behavior is normal or prevalent in the natural world.

What I was trying to say is that it is "natural" in the natural world.... not common, that's all.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:06 PM
What I was trying to say is that it is "natural" in the natural world.... not common, that's all.

It's not, nic. You're confusing an interpreation of animal behavior with a sexual orientation.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:10 PM
It's a curious thing. The proponents of gay marriage seem awfully concerned about the actual history of marriage. One would think it wouldn't matter to liberals but apparently it does.

Chris
02-25-2013, 02:13 PM
It's a curious thing. The proponents of gay marriage seem awfully concerned about the actual history of marriage. One would think it wouldn't matter to liberals but apparently it does.

You're the one brought up tradition. How do you establish this tradition exists the way you believe it does without history?

Chloe
02-25-2013, 02:14 PM
It's a curious thing. The proponents of gay marriage seem awfully concerned about the actual history of marriage. One would think it wouldn't matter to liberals but apparently it does.

I don't care that much about the history of it even though marriage HAS changed over time. For example if I was in a relationship right now and he proposed to me then it would be cool and we'd start planning the wedding, however at one time I'd have to rely on my dad to choose my groom, a dowry would be involved, and a whole lot of other nonsense. Times change and so do traditions.

Chris
02-25-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure what drives you to do this but feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. Fact: marriage has been defined by millenia of custom and tradition. It is between a male and a female. This is true of our Christian past, our pagan past, and our prehistoric past. Now if you have an argument then make it. if not, accept reality.

Explain how in one post you invoke history and in another reject it.

killianr1
02-25-2013, 02:20 PM
Sure it does. The problem is that your society is utterly diseased. See ya at the next mass murder.

"your society" Could you please explain exactly what "my society" is?

I am not out commiting mass murder nor do I even support cop killers. There is a difference between breaking laws and being what some to believe "immoral".

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:22 PM
"your society" Could you please explain exactly what "my society" is?

I am not out commiting mass murder nor do I even support cop killers. There is a difference between breaking laws and being what some to believe "immoral".

Do you live in the US?

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:22 PM
Explain how in one post you invoke history and in another reject it.

Explain what you are refrring to. I have no idea.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:24 PM
You're the one brought up tradition. How do you establish this tradition exists the way you believe it does without history?


I brought up tradition and history. You seem to think I'm wrong in what I said about them. Obviously, it is of some importance to you or you would not care about tradition or history.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 02:26 PM
History can't change obviously since it already happened, but traditions come and go and can change at any time. "Tradition" has kept a lot of good progress from being made throughout history. Not to say all traditions are bad because they aren't, but tradition does not necessarily make something untouchable or unchangeable.

nic34
02-25-2013, 02:28 PM
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:29 PM
I don't care that much about the history of it even though marriage HAS changed over time. For example if I was in a relationship right now and he proposed to me then it would be cool and we'd start planning the wedding, however at one time I'd have to rely on my dad to choose my groom, a dowry would be involved, and a whole lot of other nonsense. Times change and so do traditions.

As a Jew perhaps. Romantic love is foreign to your culture.

regarding history, that's what I would expect from liberals which is what caused me to comment.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:30 PM
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Behavior, nic. This is dragged out time and again by progressives who don't know what they're talking about.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:31 PM
History can't change obviously since it already happened, but traditions come and go and can change at any time. "Tradition" has kept a lot of good progress from being made throughout history. Not to say all traditions are bad because they aren't, but tradition does not necessarily make something untouchable or unchangeable.

Chloe, that's fine. All I ask is that you acknowledge what a marriage in fact is.

killianr1
02-25-2013, 02:31 PM
Yes I do. Do you?

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:32 PM
Yes I do. Do you?

Yes. It's my society too. Get it now?

Chloe
02-25-2013, 02:34 PM
Chloe, that's fine. All I ask is that you acknowledge what a marriage in fact is.

Its a lifetime commitment between two people who love each other AND also the ability to have certain benefits that only comes from that marriage license. Atleast that's what it is in the present.

nic34
02-25-2013, 02:35 PM
Behavior, nic. This is dragged out time and again by progressives who don't know what they're talking about.

Go read the piece.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:38 PM
Go read the piece.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

I've read the piece (of propaganda) several times. It's the same article every time. Again, you don;t seem to understand the difference between 1) observed animal behavior and its interpreation and 2) human sexual orientation. Human homosexuals are attracted exclusively to the same sex. This is rare in the Animal Kingdom. Don't let journalists do your thinking for you even when they are telling you what you want to hear.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:40 PM
Its a lifetime commitment between two people who love each other AND also the ability to have certain benefits that only comes from that marriage license. Atleast that's what it is in the present.

It's a lifetime commitment between a male and a female. Now you want to change that and that's fine for our purposes. Just acknowledge that.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 02:44 PM
It's a lifetime commitment between a male and a female. Now you want to change that and that's fine for our purposes. Just acknowledge that.

Yes I want to change that. Remember in the Declaration of Independence it talks about how all "men" are created equal? If you go by words alone I'm not equal to you, but times change and so do minds.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Yes I want to change that. Remember in the Declaration of Independence it talks about how all "men" are created equal? If you go by words alone I'm not equal to you, but times change and so do minds.

Thank you.

Yes, our traditions have been thrown away to make room for the latest fashions. On that we agree. We just phrase it differently.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 02:57 PM
Thank you.

Yes, our traditions have been thrown away to make room for the latest fashions. On that we agree. We just phrase it differently.

It's not always fashion. Sometimes it's just because its the right thing to do

Mister D
02-25-2013, 03:00 PM
It's not always fashion. Sometimes it's just because its the right thing to do

I have no doubt you feel it is.

killianr1
02-25-2013, 03:04 PM
Yes, our traditions have been thrown away to make room for the latest fashions. On that we agree. We just phrase it differently.

Ok now I have to repeat myself.

It is not a fashion that you choose or select. I did not wake up one morning and "decide" that I was a homosexual. I am sure that you or any straight person woke up one morning and "decided" that you were going to be hetrosexual.

It is not like you prefer the blue shirt over the white shirt.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 03:08 PM
Ok now I have to repeat myself.

It is not a fashion that you choose or select. I did not wake up one morning and "decide" that I was a homosexual. I am sure that you or any straight person woke up one morning and "decided" that you were going to be hetrosexual.

It is not like you prefer the blue shirt over the white shirt.

Please don't repeat your off topic comment a third time.

Chris
02-25-2013, 03:17 PM
Yes I want to change that. Remember in the Declaration of Independence it talks about how all "men" are created equal? If you go by words alone I'm not equal to you, but times change and so do minds.

Rather, if you go by the words as written and intended we do here have a record of tradition that all men are created equal before the law. It is that tradition the OP invokes, and by the same token I invoke for equal treatment before the law regarding marriage.

Peter1469
02-25-2013, 04:03 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

I would not equate human behavior to that of animals. Human sexuality is much more complex than animals acting largely through instinct.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 05:49 PM
You're making an emotional appeal, Chole. Yes, it's a fad. It's a whim. It's pure emotion and utterly lacking in substance. Secondly, why do they need to show this love to the whole world? You sort of get it but you haven't quite put it together yet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights and equality. It's about changing perceptions. It's about acceptance. That's why just loving each other won't cut it. That's why it needs official recognition.

Look, just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
It has everything to do with rights and equality, especially when it means the difference between having a say in what happens to your spouse in a hospital emergency situation or being able to declare your spouse a dependent on your tax return or automatically being the beneficiary of your spouse's estate. Just little things like that.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 05:53 PM
It has everything to do with rights and equality, especially when it means the difference between having a say in what happens to your spouse in a hospital emergency situation or being able to declare your spouse a dependent on your tax return or automatically being the beneficiary of your spouse's estate. Just little things like that.

You don't have a spouse in this case. You have a boyfriend or a girlfriend. The emotional appeals are tiresome.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 05:55 PM
I would not equate human behavior to that of animals. Human sexuality is much more complex than animals acting largely through instinct.

No educated person would but the press rushes to support its pet causes. Their aim is to further those causes not to provide information.

Chris
02-25-2013, 05:58 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

I would not equate human behavior to that of animals. Human sexuality is much more complex than animals acting largely through instinct.

Nic is not equating, just saying both are natural.

But this an so many other distractions, like tradition, personal beliefs, are beside the point of the OP which makes a legal argument based on equality before the law.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 06:02 PM
I'm not sure what drives you to do this but feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. Fact: marriage has been defined by millenia of custom and tradition. It is between a male and a female. This is true of our Christian past, our pagan past, and our prehistoric past. Now if you have an argument then make it. if not, accept reality.
Ritualized marriage is a relatively recent thing: "With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties". i.e. no ceremony of any kind. "It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history." Wikipedia

Mister D
02-25-2013, 06:37 PM
Ritualized marriage is a relatively recent thing: "With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties". i.e. no ceremony of any kind. "It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history." Wikipedia

I have no idea what your point about "ritualized marriage" is supposed to be. Anyway, no, it is not believed that same sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome or Classical Greece. There is zero evidence for any such thing. Regarding Rome, let me save you some trouble. This claim refers to passages in the works of Martial and Juvenal who were satirists. They speak of a homosexual marriage ceremony but it's satire. Juvenal even alludes to the fact that homosexual relationships had no legal status:

"Tomorrow at noon, I have to officiate in the Quirinal" "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask; a friend takes a husband and invites some guests." If we live long enough, this will happen, and happen openly; they will want it reported in the city news. "

Martial writes:

Are you still not satisfied [with the wedding], Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?

:grin:

Men simply did not marry men in ancient Rome. It was a ridiculous concept to Romans hence the satire and mockery of Nero and Egalabus to whom the writers in question are referring respectively.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 06:53 PM
I have no idea what your point about "ritualized marriage" is supposed to be. Anyway, no, it is not believed that same sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome or Classical Greece. There is zero evidence for any such thing. Regarding Rome, let me save you some trouble. This claim refers to passages in the works of Martial and Juvenal who were satirists. They speak of a homosexual marriage ceremony but it's satire. Juvenal even alludes to the fact that homosexual relationships had no legal status:

"Tomorrow at noon, I have to officiate in the Quirinal" "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask; a friend takes a husband and invites some guests." If we live long enough, this will happen, and happen openly; they will want it reported in the city news. "

Martial writes:

Are you still not satisfied [with the wedding], Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?

:grin:

Men simply did not marry men in ancient Rome. It was a ridiculous concept to Romans hence the satire and mockery of Nero and Egalabus to whom the writers in question are referring respectively.
Presumably the original marriages also had no "legal" status, since at the time, females had no legal status. The ritualization of marriage and the incorporation of religion gave females and offspring some legal rights in the relationship, thus requiring the law or the church for legal dissolution.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 06:59 PM
Presumably the original marriages also had no "legal" status, since at the time, females had no legal status. The ritualization of marriage and the incorporation of religion gave females and offspring some legal rights in the relationship, thus requiring the law or the church for legal dissolution.

Women had greater status than they did in Semitic societies. Indeed, that is true of western cultures generally. It is no accident that "Women's Liberation" occurred in the western world but the status of females is immaterial. Of course "original marriages" (presumably you mean regular Roman marriages) had legal status. They had legal status by definition. Otherwise, it would not be a marriage.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:00 PM
They satirized what happened in reality to voice opinions. To satirize fictions would be nonsense, mere irrational straw man argument, and these writers were anything but irrational.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 07:01 PM
Women had greater status than they did in Semitic societies. Indeed, that is true of western cultures generally. It is no accident that "Women's Liberation" occurred in the western world but the status of females is immaterial. Of course "original marriages" (presumably you mean regular Roman marriages) had legal status. They had legal status by definition. Otherwise, it would not be a marriage.
If there was no legal impediment for a man to walk away and abandon his wife and offspring, they were simply shacked-up.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:04 PM
If there was no legal impediment for a man to walk away and abandon his wife and offspring, they were simply shacked-up.

Who? Where? In Rome? A woman could walk away from her husband and take the dowry back to boot. Divorce laws were much like they are now.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:07 PM
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#section_2

That indicates the opposite of your conclusion about the Martial and Juvenal and other writers of the time who actually celebrated it.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 07:11 PM
Who? Where? In Rome? A woman could walk away from her husband and take the dowry back to boot. Divorce laws were much like they are now.
I think the laws applied primarily to the elite. No one cared what the peasants did.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:15 PM
They satirized what happened in reality to voice opinions. To satirize fictions would be nonsense, mere irrational straw man argument, and these writers were anything but irrational.

If the two mad emperors in question actually married dudes it only supports my argument. Everyone else thought it was crazy! :laugh: It was held up to scorn by Martial and Juvenal for precisely that reason. It strongly suggests such a thing was unheard of and certainly had no legal basis whatsoever. But, hey, it's good to be king. :wink:

That said, there is no evidence that it actually happened. These could very well have been a lurid stories told after their deaths.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:17 PM
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#section_2

That indicates the opposite of your conclusion about the Martial and Juvenal and other writers of the time who actually celebrated it.

Is there something in particular you wanted me to see?

BTW, homosexuality and gay marriage are two different things.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:19 PM
I think the laws applied primarily to the elite. No one cared what the peasants did.

Even if that is true (I doubt it is) the fact remains that same sex unions had no legal basis. They were not marriages. Period.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:25 PM
Let me add that Roman socieyt was not quite as tolerant toward gays as many of us have been led to believe.

While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”


The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

http://hnn.us/articles/21319.html

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:25 PM
Is there something in particular you wanted me to see?

BTW, homosexuality and gay marriage are two different things.

I summarized what you'd find were you to read it.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:28 PM
If the two mad emperors in question actually married dudes it only supports my argument. Everyone else thought it was crazy! :laugh: It was held up to scorn by Martial and Juvenal for precisely that reason. It strongly suggests such a thing was unheard of and certainly had no legal basis whatsoever. But, hey, it's good to be king. :wink:

That said, there is no evidence that it actually happened. These could very well have been a lurid stories told after their deaths.

It might support the notion they didn't like the emporors but does not at all support your conclusion about marriage and homosexuality in Roman times.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:28 PM
I summarized what you'd find were you to read it.

Let me know when you can cite the relevant material. I would certainly do so for you so I'm assuming you had no point worth discussing.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:32 PM
It might support the notion they didn't like the emporors but does not at all support your conclusion about marriage and homosexuality in Roman times.

Sure it does. Juvenal even alludes to the fact that it had no legal basis.

"Tomorrow at noon, I have to officiate in the Quirinal" "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask; a friend takes a husband and invites some guests." If we live long enough, this will happen, and happen openly; they will want it reported in the city news. "

There is ZERO evidence for same sex marriages in either Classical Greece of Rome. What does exist supports my contention. You simply did not marry a person of the same sex.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:35 PM
Let me add that Roman socieyt was not quite as tolerant toward gays as many of us have been led to believe.

While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”


The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

http://hnn.us/articles/21319.html


So you cite now the history of elite lawmakers who like our own pass DOMA despite society favoring more and more letting gays marry.

There are always going t o be intolerant people for no rational reason than personal fears or just needing a convenient scapegoat to distract from their own failures, especially among the ruling classes.

Again the fact laws were made substantiate s the fact marriages between gays existed.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:36 PM
You know, my religion (Judaism) has existed long before yours, and marriage was around even before that. Marriage is not a Christian invention.

Then you Know God says marriage is one man and one woman.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:37 PM
But the fact is, homosexuality is everywhere in the natural world and has been since the beginning. It may not be "normal" to us, but it is natural and certainly not a "fad".

It is not normal and is immoral

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:37 PM
Sure it does. Juvenal even alludes to the fact that it had no legal basis.

"Tomorrow at noon, I have to officiate in the Quirinal" "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask; a friend takes a husband and invites some guests." If we live long enough, this will happen, and happen openly; they will want it reported in the city news. "

There is ZERO evidence for same sex marriages in either Classical Greece of Rome. What does exist supports my contention. You simply did not marry a person of the same sex.


Yet it happened. Why else would an elite ruling class make laws against it.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:38 PM
So you cite now the history of elite lawmakers who like our own pass DOMA despite society favoring more and more letting gays marry.

There are always going t o be intolerant people for no rational reason than personal fears or just needing a convenient scapegoat to distract from their own failures, especially among the ruling classes.

Again the fact laws were made substantiate s the fact marriages between gays existed.

Since I tend to cite the relevant material the least you could do is read it. Sheesh..

Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”

Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:38 PM
It is not normal and is immoral

I get it that you persoally believe that but we're talking, by your own OP, equality before the law not man.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:40 PM
Since I tend to cite the relevant material the least you could do is read it. Sheesh..

Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”

Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

I did, unlike your not resding material at the link I provided.

Besides, let's stick to ideas here.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:40 PM
Yet it happened. Why else would an elite ruling class make laws against it.

The Lex Scantinia has nothing to do with marriage. It's an anti-sodomy law.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:40 PM
Then you Know God says marriage is one man and one woman.

God says no such thing.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:41 PM
I did, unlike your not resding material at the link I provided.

Besides, let's stick to ideas here.

Present them. I'll wait. As for what you read, one would never have guessed since it discusses general Roman attitudes.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:42 PM
I get it that you persoally believe that but we're talking, by your own OP, equality before the law not man.

This is Obama going around the law. Obama is discriminating against all couples that are not gay. This is Obama once again playing politics to get support from a special interest group.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:46 PM
God says no such thing.


Matthew 19:4-6New King James Version (NKJV)

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-23767a)] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-23767b)] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-23768c)] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:48 PM
Again, religious arguments are not convincing for those who do not believe. I do sympathize with you, however, you aren't helping your case by citing scripture.

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:48 PM
This is Obama going around the law. Obama is discriminating against all couples that are not gay. This is Obama once again playing politics to get support from a special interest group.

I get that and got it my first response page one. But if you're going to argue equality before the law over man, rule of law not rule of man, the same holds true for laws like DOMA that discriminate against gays. You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 07:50 PM
the book of Matthew is part of the christian bible and does not speak for all faiths, all morals, and all time periods before and after christianity was formed. A sentence in a religious book should not determine the rights of people in a secular country.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:52 PM
the book of Matthew is part of the christian bible and does not speak for all faiths, all morals, and all time periods before and after christianity was formed. A sentence in a religious book should not determine the rights of people in a secular country.

Same sex marriage is illegal in Israel but Israel is relatively theocratic.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:53 PM
I get that and got it my first response page one. But if you're going to argue equality before the law over man, rule of law not rule of man, the same holds true for laws like DOMA that discriminate against gays. You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

Obama is trying to blame games because he can not get congress to change the law

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:53 PM
Sorry, that doesn't cut it, it takes a lot of interpretation to go from that to your claim about what God says.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:54 PM
the book of Matthew is part of the christian bible and does not speak for all faiths, all morals, and all time periods before and after christianity was formed. A sentence in a religious book should not determine the rights of people in a secular country.

Yet it will come to that. If it is not about religion than civil unions that give all the rights of marriage should be good

Chris
02-25-2013, 07:55 PM
Obama is trying to blame games because he can not get congress to change the law

I agree with you about Obama. But that same argument leads to gays ought to be able to marry legally.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 07:57 PM
Yet it will come to that. If it is not about religion than civil unions that give all the rights of marriage should be good

Well, that's a good point. Gays should be satisfied with that but they continue to push for marriage. That's because this is about social acceptance not rights or equality.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:57 PM
Sorry, that doesn't cut it, it takes a lot of interpretation to go from that to your claim about what God says.

Jesus is referring to God creating them Male and female to be together. God did not create Adam and Steve. In Leviticus it states Homosexuality is an abomination to God

http://www.shalach.org/Sin/Homosexulaity.htm

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 07:58 PM
This is Obama going around the law. Obama is discriminating against all couples that are not gay. This is Obama once again playing politics to get support from a special interest group.
Please, this debate is not limited to the US. It is worldwide.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 07:58 PM
Same sex marriage is illegal in Israel but Israel is relatively theocratic.

Israel was founded as a home for Jews so it's purpose is not really to be a secular nation. I'm sure one day the country will come around but the ultra orthodox in Israel is very powerful and they are no less discriminatory to homosexuals as a hard line christian in this country would be.

ptif219
02-25-2013, 07:59 PM
Well, that's a good point. Gays should be satisfied with that but they continue to push for marriage. That's because this is about social acceptance not rights or equality.

I think it is about attacking the Christian religion and corrupting what is a covenant with God with what is an abomination to God

ptif219
02-25-2013, 08:00 PM
Please, this debate is not limited to the US. It is worldwide.

We are talking about the US military policy not the world

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:05 PM
Israel was founded as a home for Jews so it's purpose is not really to be a secular nation. I'm sure one day the country will come around but the ultra orthodox in Israel is very powerful and they are no less discriminatory to homosexuals as a hard line christian in this country would be.

I don't hold that against Israelis. Good for them. Their ethno-religious state is fine with me. What I do hold take exception to is the hypocrisy of those Jews who support one way of life for their own but undermine the way of life of the peoples among whom they live. American jews overwhelmingly support gay marriage in the USA but are much more accepting of it in Israel.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:06 PM
I think it is about attacking the Christian religion and corrupting what is a covenant with God with what is an abomination to God

There is certainly an anti-Christian element involved.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 08:06 PM
Yet it will come to that. If it is not about religion than civil unions that give all the rights of marriage should be good

Marriage has been on this earth long before "religion"

Peter1469
02-25-2013, 08:06 PM
In the Greek city states, it was pretty commonplace for men to take younger boys (after puberty) as lovers. But they still married women and had families to continue society. I would not equate that with what we consider homosexuality to be today. I am not providing a moral judgement, just pointing out history.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:07 PM
Please, this debate is not limited to the US. It is worldwide.

Is it? It seems to be a crusade of of western elitists.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:08 PM
In the Greek city states, it was pretty commonplace for men to take younger boys (after puberty) as lovers. But they still married women and had families to continue society. I would not equate that with what we consider homosexuality to be today. I am not providing a moral judgement, just pointing out history.

Pederasty was common among some Greek peoples but men did not marry other men. It made no sense to do so.

Chloe
02-25-2013, 08:08 PM
I think it is about attacking the Christian religion and corrupting what is a covenant with God with what is an abomination to God

Nobody is trying to attack the christian religion. Christianity and christians didn't create marriage, but I will say that many of them are trying to make it seem like they own it.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:09 PM
Marriage has been on this earth long before "religion"

Not sure about that. They probably grew in tandem. That's not to say that marriage is a religious institution. It's a cultural institution but I would not go as far as to say it predates our religious sensibility.

Chris
02-25-2013, 08:17 PM
Jesus is referring to God creating them Male and female to be together. God did not create Adam and Steve. In Leviticus it states Homosexuality is an abomination to God

http://www.shalach.org/Sin/Homosexulaity.htm

Right, but he wasn't dictating what marriage should be, Christians do that, and they do it differently.

All of which is wholly irrelevant to your arguement about equality before the law in the OP.

Edited to fix cellphone typos.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 08:18 PM
Even if that is true (I doubt it is) the fact remains that same sex unions had no legal basis. They were not marriages. Period.
Nor did the marriages of the average Roman citizen.

"Judith Evans Grubbs says that from an early period in Rome, women not married in manu had the right to divorce. Sometimes the wife's father might instigate the return of the dowry -- divorce -- on his daughter's behalf. In these cases, also, the husband might lay claim to part of the dowry."

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:25 PM
Nor did the marriages of the average Roman citizen.

"Judith Evans Grubbs says that from an early period in Rome, women not married in manu had the right to divorce. Sometimes the wife's father might instigate the return of the dowry -- divorce -- on his daughter's behalf. In these cases, also, the husband might lay claim to part of the dowry."

Huh? If a marriage had no legal basis what is the point of divorce proceedings? I don't understand the point your trying to make.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 08:35 PM
Is it? It seems to be a crusade of of western elitists.
It is the antithesis of elitism. It is about equality of human rights. It is not about religion, culture, tradition or anything based on human bias. It is about the letter of the law, in the sense that all "men" meaning human beings are created equal. What is legal for the majority, should by law, be legal for the minority, because they are, after all, all human beings. No one requires that you agree or condone what is their natural human relationship with others or whom they choose as a mate, provided that all are consenting adults. Period.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 08:37 PM
Huh? If a marriage had no legal basis what is the point of divorce proceedings? I don't understand the point your trying to make.
Only the wealthy were married in manu. The rest had no legal status.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:40 PM
It is the antithesis of elitism. It is about equality of human rights. It is not about religion, culture, tradition or anything based on human bias. It is about the letter of the law, in the sense that all "men" meaning human beings are created equal. What is legal for the majority, should by law, be legal for the minority, because they are, after all, all human beings. No one requires that you agree or condone what is their natural human relationship with others or whom they choose as a mate, provided that all are consenting adults. Period.

Equality is nonsense It doesn't exist and it never will but I digress.

The letter of whose law? Why are we berating Islamic societies, for example, about LBGT rights? Shouldn't they tell us to mind our own business? That's what I thought we were talking about. You seem to jump around a lot, Doc. I think we've done the domestic thing to death for now. My views are clear. So are your own.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:43 PM
Only the wealthy were married in manu. The rest had no legal status.

Then you would not need a divorce.

Manus (pronounced /ˈmeɪnəs/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English), Latin: [ˈmanʊs] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Latin)) is Ancient Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman) marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Gardner-1) of which there were two forms: cum manu and sine manu.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-John-2) In a cum manu marriage the wife was placed under the legal control of the husband.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Gardner-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-John-2) In a sine manu marriage the wife was still under the legal control of her father.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) In both cases, the marriage could only take place with the approval of the patres familias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias) if both the husband and wife were alieni iuris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_in_Roman_legal_system).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) However, the creation and termination of the marriage somewhat depended on the type of marriage.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) Initially cum manu was the only form of marriage but in time the cum manu union faded and only sine manu marriage was widely practiced.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Van-4)

Incidentally, this is precisely what Wiki is great for: obtaining information on uncontroversial issues. All marriages are legal by definition.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 08:45 PM
Then you would not need a divorce.

Manus (pronounced /ˈmeɪnəs/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English), Latin: [ˈmanʊs] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Latin)) is Ancient Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman) marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Gardner-1) of which there were two forms: cum manu and sine manu.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-John-2) In a cum manu marriage the wife was placed under the legal control of the husband.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Gardner-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-John-2) In a sine manu marriage the wife was still under the legal control of her father.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) In both cases, the marriage could only take place with the approval of the patres familias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias) if both the husband and wife were alieni iuris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_in_Roman_legal_system).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) However, the creation and termination of the marriage somewhat depended on the type of marriage.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Colish-3) Initially cum manu was the only form of marriage but in time the cum manu union faded and only sine manu marriage was widely practiced.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_marriage#cite_note-Van-4)

Incidentally, this is precisely what Wiki is great for: obtaining information on uncontroversial issues. All marriages are legal by definition.
A marriage is only "legal" if there are legal remedies.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 08:47 PM
A marriage is only "legal" if there are legal remedies.

For what? Divorce proceedings indicate the pair had entered into a legal contract.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 08:53 PM
For what? Divorce proceedings indicate the pair had entered into a legal contract.
Again only if the "marriage" was in manu. Otherwise they were just shacked-up. The latter was the majority of people.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:00 PM
Again only if the "marriage" was in manu. Otherwise they were just shacked-up. The latter was the majority of people.

Doc, all Sine Manu means is that the wife was still a member of her father's family. It was still a legally recognized contract. In fact, that's why it was adopted so often. The children belonged to her husband but this was a way for a father to protect his property until he died. Regardless, it was a legal union and recognized as such. Just a different form. So, no, they were not just "shacked up".

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:01 PM
Indeed, why not just "shack up"? :smiley: Why get married at all?

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 09:17 PM
Doc, all Sine Manu means is that the wife was still a member of her father's family. It was still a legally recognized contract. In fact, that's why it was adopted so often. The children belonged to her husband but this was a way for a father to protect his property until he died. Regardless, it was a legal union and recognized as such. Just a different form. So, no, they were not just "shacked up".
Ancient Romans led the way in no-fault divorce
STANFORD -- No-fault divorce is not unique to the 20th century - the ancient Romans showed the way.
In fact, the Romans were more liberal in their divorce practices than are contemporary societies, according to Stanford University classics Prof. Susan Treggiari, whose book Roman Marriage has just been published by Oxford University Press.
To divorce, one or both parties to a Roman marriage simply had to consider themselves no longer married. It was deemed advisable to notify the other party, but not legally required that one do so. No public authority was involved.
Romans didn't "get a divorce," they simply divorced, Treggiari said.
The "no-fault" divorce evolved over the centuries. In the early years of Roman society, the husband had the right to divorce his wife for major faults - such as adultery - or drinking wine, which was supposed to lead to major faults.
As time went on, husbands acquired the right to divorce their wives for other failures. These included not producing children; since the wife was not viewed as being at fault, however, the husband had to return her dowry so she could re-marry.
By the first century B.C., either spouse could divorce the other or they could agree mutually to divorce. Since marrying another person was an indication that someone considered him or herself divorced from a previous spouse, bigamy was impossible.
As for adultery, Treggiari said, "Romans, as far as I can judge, were less into honor and shame than other Mediterranean peoples since."
In the first century B.C., Emperor Augustus, apparently believing that husbands and fathers were not doing enough to punish adultery, promulgated a law changing adultery from a matter for private settlement into a crime. The law called for severe penalties, including confiscation of property and exile, and allowed for a plea of justifiable homicide in some cases if a husband came home and found his wife in bed with another man.
At least one scholar, Treggiari said, has traced a link between this Augustan law and the Italian "crime of honor" in which, until very recently, courts would impose only light sentences on a man who killed his wife's lover "in the heat of the moment."
Marriage customs, too, changed over the years. In early Rome, from the eighth century B.C., the institution of patria potestas gave men absolute power over their wives and children. They could abandon or kill babies, as was often done with deformed infants, and they had power over their children's property, even after the children grew into adults.
This patriarchal system evolved over the centuries, and in later periods women could marry without entering their husband's legal control. In fact, some women married and only later chose to put themselves under the power of their husbands, probably for reasons of property and inheritance, Treggiari said. Classical Roman law, from 100 B.C. on, required the consent of both bride and groom to an engagement and marriage. As a practical matter, since divorce was easily available, forcing a couple to marry made no sense. http://news.stanford.edu/pr/91/911203Arc1041.html

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:19 PM
Right. I said as much about Roman divorce earlier.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:20 PM
Article looks interesting.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 09:35 PM
Right. I said as much about Roman divorce earlier.
Well really, nobody cared unless there was a dowry.

Mister D
02-25-2013, 09:39 PM
Sadly, no one seems to care much now either unless there is money or real estate at stake.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:20 PM
In the Greek city states, it was pretty commonplace for men to take younger boys (after puberty) as lovers. But they still married women and had families to continue society. I would not equate that with what we consider homosexuality to be today. I am not providing a moral judgement, just pointing out history.

English Universities were know for homosexual unions back in Keynes' day, he was a raging homosexual all his life. People thought nothing of it.

In modern times know one thought much about it, including Christians until after the rise of Fundamentalism against Social Gospellers, what, in the 40s, 50s--IIRC, the word homosexual never appeared in an English translation until the 1950s.

But again, the OP raised only a legal question about equality before the laws as opposed to special treatment of any group.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 10:32 PM
English Universities were know for homosexual unions back in Keynes' day, he was a raging homosexual all his life. People thought nothing of it.

In modern times know one thought much about it, including Christians until after the rise of Fundamentalism against Social Gospellers, what, in the 40s, 50s--IIRC, the word homosexual never appeared in an English translation until the 1950s.

But again, the OP raised only a legal question about equality before the laws as opposed to special treatment of any group.
Essentially, if it is a matter of equality and a matter of the law, as you are not dealing with non-human species, anyone should be able to marry whomever they wish so long as they are a consenting adult. Whilst the US Constitution made religious freedom paramount, they did not hold the religious to have more rights than the secular. So, while no religous institution should by law, be forced to perform a same sex marriage, that does not preclude same sex marriage by those who are willing.

Chris
02-25-2013, 10:43 PM
Essentially, if it is a matter of equality and a matter of the law, as you are not dealing with non-human species, anyone should be able to marry whomever they wish so long as they are a consenting adult. Whilst the US Constitution made religious freedom paramount, they did not hold the religious to have more rights than the secular. So, while no religous institution should by law, be forced to perform a same sex marriage, that does not preclude same sex marriage by those who are willing.

So long as there's no harm, as I think holds against polygamy. And age is a factor, maturity to consent, otherwise it would be harmful.

Anyway, my point is simply government should get out of the business of dictating what marriage is. That would not prevent this or that group or organization from exercising their beliefs or principles, just prevent government from doing so. --I'm trying to stick to the legal point opening this thread.

Dr. Who
02-25-2013, 10:49 PM
So long as there's no harm, as I think holds against polygamy. And age is a factor, maturity to consent, otherwise it would be harmful.

Anyway, my point is simply government should get out of the business of dictating what marriage is. That would not prevent this or that group or organization from exercising their beliefs or principles, just prevent government from doing so. --I'm trying to stick to the legal point opening this thread.

Agree, though there are those who may make a case for polygamy. Not me, but again if all are consenting adults....

Mister D
02-26-2013, 08:02 AM
English Universities were know for homosexual unions back in Keynes' day, he was a raging homosexual all his life. People thought nothing of it.

In modern times know one thought much about it, including Christians until after the rise of Fundamentalism against Social Gospellers, what, in the 40s, 50s--IIRC, the word homosexual never appeared in an English translation until the 1950s.

But again, the OP raised only a legal question about equality before the laws as opposed to special treatment of any group.

Homosexual acts were a capital offense in England until 1861. People didn't talk about homosexual behavior and it was tolerated as long as it was kept discrete. Oscar Wilde, the famous writer, was prosecuted for homosexual acts in the late 1890s.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 08:03 AM
Agree, though there are those who may make a case for polygamy. Not me, but again if all are consenting adults....

That is the logical conclusion...

Chris
02-26-2013, 10:54 AM
Homosexual acts were a capital offense in England until 1861. People didn't talk about homosexual behavior and it was tolerated as long as it was kept discrete. Oscar Wilde, the famous writer, was prosecuted for homosexual acts in the late 1890s.

Again, an example where laws passed by elites reflected no one bit social norms. Citing laws or even cases of prosecution lends no evidence of actual social traditions.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 10:58 AM
Again, an example where laws passed by elites reflected no one bit social norms. Citing laws or even cases of prosecution lends no evidence of actual social traditions.

Laws are a reflection of culture and custom. Moreover, elites are a part of society and only become a problem when they are detached from the people they govern. Like it or not, anti-sodomy laws reflected Vioctorian social norms. If homosexual behavior was widely accepted in England as you claim then there would have been no such laws. Fact: homosexuality was potentially scandelous in Victorian England. If one was not discrete, one paid for it. Oscar wilde, to use him as an example again, left England in disgrace having been abandoned by his friends and family.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 11:11 AM
Worse still, homosexuality was widely regarded by English doctors of the era as a disease.

ptif219
02-26-2013, 11:41 AM
Marriage has been on this earth long before "religion"

Depends what you believe. If you believe Genesis then religion started at the creation of man

ptif219
02-26-2013, 11:43 AM
Nobody is trying to attack the christian religion. Christianity and christians didn't create marriage, but I will say that many of them are trying to make it seem like they own it.

Maybe not Christians but I believe it started with Adam and eve

ptif219
02-26-2013, 11:45 AM
Right, but he wasn't dictating what marriage should be, Christians do that, and they do it differently.

All of which is wholly irrelevant to your arguement about equality before the law in the OP.

Edited to fix cellphone typos.

Not at all since in Leviticus it says homosexuality is an abomination. Marriage in God's eyes can only be one man and one woman

ptif219
02-26-2013, 11:47 AM
It is the antithesis of elitism. It is about equality of human rights. It is not about religion, culture, tradition or anything based on human bias. It is about the letter of the law, in the sense that all "men" meaning human beings are created equal. What is legal for the majority, should by law, be legal for the minority, because they are, after all, all human beings. No one requires that you agree or condone what is their natural human relationship with others or whom they choose as a mate, provided that all are consenting adults. Period.

Civil unions for gays with all the legal benefits of marriage would meet that

Chloe
02-26-2013, 11:47 AM
Maybe not Christians but I believe it started with Adam and eve

Ok but see I believe it is just a good story and life lesson. Who's correct though?

ptif219
02-26-2013, 11:49 AM
Ok but see I believe it is just a good story and life lesson. Who's correct though?

So you do not believe the Holy Word of God? Are you atheist?

Chloe
02-26-2013, 11:50 AM
So you do not believe the Holy Word of God? Are you atheist?

Would it matter?

Chloe
02-26-2013, 12:06 PM
ptif219 I promise you I am not trying to be a jerk to you or difficult or anything like that. All I am trying to get across is that the bible, or any religious book for that matter, does not and should not decide what is right or wrong in this country. What you believe may not be what someone else believes, and your belief is not somehow more powerful than others just because your belief in your mind is more powerful. A sentence in the bible written thousands of years ago should not determine a person's future or rights in my opinion.

Also to answer your question no I am not an atheist, i'm jewish but I am not overly religious, however, I do believe that the universe is too massive and unique to be an accident and so therefore I do believe that there is something bigger than all of us (God), but what I don't believe in is forcing my religious beliefs on others.

Chris
02-26-2013, 02:27 PM
Laws are a reflection of culture and custom. Moreover, elites are a part of society and only become a problem when they are detached from the people they govern. Like it or not, anti-sodomy laws reflected Vioctorian social norms. If homosexual behavior was widely accepted in England as you claim then there would have been no such laws. Fact: homosexuality was potentially scandelous in Victorian England. If one was not discrete, one paid for it. Oscar wilde, to use him as an example again, left England in disgrace having been abandoned by his friends and family.

Laws inasmuch as they adhere to natural law can reflect society and culture, that is rule of law. All too often laws are the results of man's artificial design, that is the rule of man.

All you've shown is that laws existed against what society accepted. Same now. Society is accepting marriage for gays more and more and elites are inventing laws against society.

Oscar Wilde is one case, Keynes another, and the opposite.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 02:39 PM
Laws inasmuch as they adhere to natural law can reflect society and culture, that is rule of law. All too often laws are the results of man's artificial design, that is the rule of man.

All you've shown is that laws existed against what society accepted. Same now. Society is accepting marriage for gays more and more and elites are inventing laws against society.

Oscar Wilde is one case, Keynes another, and the opposite.

It has nothing to do with Natural Law. Laws reflect the social mores and norms of a people. That should be obvious.

I've shown that the lives of less than discrete homosexuals ended in disgrace and scandal. Again, those laws would not exist and no scandal would ensue if homosexual behavior was as acceptable as you claim. In fact, it wasn't. Indeed, Keynes got married and led a double life. Why anyone would claim that Vcitorian England of all places was relaxed about homosexuality is beyond me.

Chris
02-26-2013, 03:10 PM
It has nothing to do with Natural Law. Laws reflect the social mores and norms of a people. That should be obvious.

I've shown that the lives of less than discrete homosexuals ended in disgrace and scandal. Again, those laws would not exist and no scandal would ensue if homosexual behavior was as acceptable as you claim. In fact, it wasn't. Indeed, Keynes got married and led a double life. Why anyone would claim that Vcitorian England of all places was relaxed about homosexuality is beyond me.

Social norms and mores and traditions and culture evolve naturally, not by design. That's all natural law is about.

You showed one of two instances. You cannot overgeneralize from Oscar Wilde.


those laws would not exist and no scandal would ensue if homosexual behavior was as acceptable as you claim

So you have claimed, but have no where demonstrated with fact or logic. Oscar Wilde is the exception that proves the rule otherwise. He was selected as a scapegoat less for his sexual orientation than other things. Keynes was just as open about his homosexuality and no one cared.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 03:23 PM
Social norms and mores and traditions and culture evolve naturally, not by design. That's all natural law is about.

You showed one of two instances. You cannot overgeneralize from Oscar Wilde.



So you have claimed, but have no where demonstrated with fact or logic. Oscar Wilde is the exception that proves the rule otherwise. He was selected as a scapegoat less for his sexual orientation than other things. Keynes was just as open about his homosexuality and no one cared.

Right. Laws against homosexual acts developed quite natually in a society in which homosexuality was not accepted as normal or decent behavior. All the available evidence thus far supports my case. I'll wait for yours.

I showed one instance you showed another instance of a man whose homosexuality was indeed closeted from the larger public. Keynes married a woman like many homosexuals do. He led a double life. Only those in his milieu knew.

Sure I have. Again, laws reflect the mores and customs of a people. That should be obvious. Why would there have been a scandal if "society" couldn't care less? Keynes married a woman to present one face to the public while showing another in private. Here is another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Street_scandal

Chris, if you have any evidence at all let's see it.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 03:23 PM
What is it your trying to get at? Dio you think elites make people disapprove of homosexuality?

Mister D
02-26-2013, 03:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabcXebaLAg

Chris
02-26-2013, 03:34 PM
Right. Laws against homosexual acts developed quite natually in a society in which homosexuality was not accepted as normal or decent behavior. All the available evidence thus far supports my case. I'll wait for yours.

I showed one instance you showed another instance of a man whose homosexuality was indeed closeted from the larger public. Keynes married a woman like many homosexuals do. He led a double life. Only those in his milieu knew.

Sure I have. Again, laws reflect the mores and customs of a people. That should be obvious. Why would there have been a scandal if "society" couldn't care less? Keynes married a woman to present one face to the public while showing another in private. Here is another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Street_scandal

Chris, if you have any evidence at all let's see it.

The laws did not develop naturally but artificially.

Wilde was prosecuted in retaliation for his taking Queensbury to court for libel, the court was grasping for straws.

Keynes did not hide his homosexuality, nor did anyone at the time.

Laws do not always reflect the norms and mores of society. Were that true DOMA was be rescinded.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 03:48 PM
The laws did not develop naturally but artificially.

Wilde was prosecuted in retaliation for his taking Queensbury to court for libel, the court was grasping for straws.

Keynes did not hide his homosexuality, nor did anyone at the time.

Laws do not always reflect the norms and mores of society. Were that true DOMA was be rescinded.

What makes you suggest this was so? Nothing other than your own prejudice? Like it or not, laws reflect culture. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. Certainly not in this case.

Grasping for straws or not is moot. Wilde was publicly disgraced and abandoned by friends and family. Obviously, it was a public embarrassment. If no one cared, why was his life torn apart?

Keynes sexuality was known in his circle. That's it. Again, he married. Homosexuals get married for a reason. It's called a double life, Chris.

The tyopically do so the burden is on you. If you believe the elites shaped Victorian attitudes about homosexuality and that "society" would be just fine with it had elites not interfered then make your case. Why should anyone believe that?

KC
02-26-2013, 03:55 PM
What makes you suggest this was so? Nothing other than your own prejudice? Like it or not, laws reflect culture. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. Certainly not in this case.

Grasping for straws or not is moot. Wilde was publicly disgraced and abandoned by friends and family. Obviously, it was a public embarrassment. If no one cared, why was his life torn apart?

Keynes sexuality was known in his circle. That's it. Again, he married. Homosexuals get married for a reason. It's called a double life, Chris.

The tyopically do so the burden is on you. If you believe the elites shaped Victorian attitudes about homosexuality and that "society" would be just fine with it had elites not interfered then make your case. Why should anyone believe that?

Laws reflect culture, legislation reflects power. There's a distinction between laws and legislation here. Legislation, which is commonly called law, is what Chris is saying does not reflect culture, because society did not treat homosexuality the same way as the legal system did. Similarly in the United States, legislation took a long time to catch up with society's laws regarding homosexual behavior, but it happened gradually.

Chris
02-26-2013, 03:58 PM
What makes you suggest this was so? Nothing other than your own prejudice? Like it or not, laws reflect culture. There is no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise. Certainly not in this case.

Grasping for straws or not is moot. Wilde was publicly disgraced and abandoned by friends and family. Obviously, it was a public embarrassment. If no one cared, why was his life torn apart?

Keynes sexuality was known in his circle. That's it. Again, he married. Homosexuals get married for a reason. It's called a double life, Chris.

The tyopically do so the burden is on you. If you believe the elites shaped Victorian attitudes about homosexuality and that "society" would be just fine with it had elites not interfered then make your case. Why should anyone believe that?

Your argument comes down to emotional appeals, largely sympathy for Wilde. Not buying it.

Neither Wilde nor Keynes nor anyone else at the time hid their sexual orientation, they were rather flamboyant about it.

Elites shaped Victorian opinion about all sexuality.

My case? It's your case that's been debunked. You're the one claiming social norms and mores where there are no. Early Western Civilization celebrated it, modern society tried to repress it but really just didn't care, until the rise of fundamentalism, a small, special group. Society today supports gays and marriage for gays. Those are the traditions, the mores, the norms.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:02 PM
Laws reflect culture, legislation reflects power. There's a distinction between laws and legislation here. Legislation, which is commonly called law, is what Chris is saying does not reflect culture, because society did not treat homosexuality the same way as the legal system did. Similarly in the United States, legislation took a long time to catch up with society's laws regarding homosexual behavior, but it happened gradually.

"Society" can't treat any proscribed behavior like the legal system can. That's as true of murder and theft as it is of anything else including buggery. Again, whether society can change of not is immaterial. It did change. It's called the Victorian era for a reason. The idea that the behavior in question was taboo and could result in ostracism had nothing to do with elites and everything to do with societal attitudes regarding homosexuality.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:07 PM
Your argument comes down to emotional appeals, largely sympathy for Wilde. Not buying it.

Neither Wilde nor Keynes nor anyone else at the time hid their sexual orientation, they were rather flamboyant about it.

Elites shaped Victorian opinion about all sexuality.

My case? It's your case that's been debunked. You're the one claiming social norms and mores where there are no. Early Western Civilization celebrated it, modern society tried to repress it but really just didn't care, until the rise of fundamentalism, a small, special group. Society today supports gays and marriage for gays. Those are the traditions, the mores, the norms.

Could you point out the emotional appeals? You shouldn't be buying because I'm not selling. :wink:

Again, Wilde paid for his flamboyance. Keynes was not flamboyant. He married. He led a double life. His sexuality was well kown only to those in his circle. We know so much about it niow becausde he kept a detailed written record of his liaisons.

Where is the evidence?

Oh no...another Bosworth claim. :laugh: Dude, stay off Wikipedia. You know he died from AIDS, right? Let's just say his conclusions are rather controversial. :wink: There is ZERO evidence to suggest Victorian "society" did not care about homosexuality. All of the evidence presented thus far suggests they did.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:14 PM
Laws reflect culture, legislation reflects power. There's a distinction between laws and legislation here. Legislation, which is commonly called law, is what Chris is saying does not reflect culture, because society did not treat homosexuality the same way as the legal system did. Similarly in the United States, legislation took a long time to catch up with society's laws regarding homosexual behavior, but it happened gradually.

Yes, and the distinction is labeled natural law--the laws or norms and mores and traditions that society unguided evolves naturally--and positive or posited or artificial law--the laws governments legislate or declare or dictate.


Laws reflect culture, legislation reflects power.

I like that, that's a good way to put it.

And that power is the power of some over others, thus legislation is usually the product of elites.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:17 PM
"Society" can't treat any proscribed behavior like the legal system can. That's as true of murder and theft as it is of anything else including buggery. Again, whether society can change of not is immaterial. It did change. It's called the Victorian era for a reason. The idea that the behavior in question was taboo and could result in ostracism had nothing to do with elites and everything to do with societal attitudes regarding homosexuality.

It most certainly can and does through its traditions and institutions and norms and mores.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:17 PM
Could you point out the emotional appeals? You shouldn't be buying because I'm not selling. :wink:

Again, Wilde paid for his flamboyance. Keynes was not flamboyant. He married. He led a double life. His sexuality was well kown only to those in his circle. We know so much about it niow becausde he kept a detailed written record of his liaisons.

Where is the evidence?

Oh no...another Bosworth claim. :laugh: Dude, stay off Wikipedia. You know he died from AIDS, right? Let's just say his conclusions are rather controversial. :wink: There is ZERO evidence to suggest Victorian "society" did not care about homosexuality. All of the evidence presented thus far suggests they did.

Emotional appeal: "Wilde was publicly disgraced and abandoned by friends and family. Obviously, it was a public embarrassment. If no one cared, why was his life torn apart?"

Keynes was openly gay, he never hid it, everyone knew. No one cared.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:18 PM
Yes, and the distinction is labeled natural law--the laws or norms and mores and traditions that society unguided evolves--and positive or posited or artificial law--the laws governments legislate or declare or dictate.



I like that, that's a good way to put it.

And that power is the power of some over others, thus legislation is usually the product of elites.

Chris, no one is talking about natural law. You need to come out of your abstract philosophy box. The laws that develop in a society reflect the attitudes, prejudices, mores etc. of a people at a given time. Whether they change or not is immaterial. Victorian sex laws reflected Victorian society. Period. That they changed after that era is moot.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:19 PM
Emotional appeal: "Wilde was publicly disgraced and abandoned by friends and family. Obviously, it was a public embarrassment. If no one cared, why was his life torn apart?"

That's called a fact, Chris. It's also a question you can't answer.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:20 PM
That's called a fact, Chris.

Facts dripping with emotional appeal.


You seem more interested in talking about talking about the topic. Can we stick to the topic. Which was an appeal to rule of law, not rule of man.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:21 PM
It most certainly can and does through its traditions and institutions and norms and mores.

No, it can't. "Society" cannot execute a murderer or incarcerate a thief. The legal system/state can. You're being silly.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:22 PM
Facts dripping with emotional appeal.


You seem more interested in talking about talking about the topic. Can we stick to the topic. Which was an appeal to rule of law, not rule of man.

You don't seem to like the facts and you can't seem to answer the question. Let me know when you can.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:22 PM
Chris, no one is talking about natural law. You need to come out of your abstract philosophy box. The laws that develop in a society reflect the attitudes, prejudices, mores etc. of a people at a given time. Whether they change or not is immaterial. Victorian sex laws reflected Victorian society. Period. That they changed after that era is moot.

Oh, but we are, and that include the OP up KC's recent post and this, any appeal to rule of law entails an appeal to natural law as opposed to posited or legislated law.

Again, you seem interested in talking about talking, let's stick to the topic.

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:42 PM
Oh, but we are, and that include the OP up KC's recent post and this, any appeal to rule of law entails an appeal to natural law as opposed to posited or legislated law.

Again, you seem interested in talking about talking, let's stick to the topic.

Sigh...

Chris, Victorian sex laws reflected Victorian society.That has absolutely nothing to do with Natural Law. You made a specious claim about Victorian society. That is our topic. You're off topic when you refer to Natural Law.

Chris
02-26-2013, 04:44 PM
Sigh...

Chris, Victorian sex laws reflected Victorian society.That has absolutely nothing to do with Natural Law. You made a specious claim about Victorian society. That is our topic. You're off topic when you refer to Natural Law.

Emotional sighs aside....

If Victorian laws reflected Victorian society then those posited laws reflected, were derived from society's natural laws.

The topic is the OP, which invokes natural law, the rule of law is natural law-based..

Mister D
02-26-2013, 04:51 PM
Emotional sighs aside....

If Victorian laws reflected Victorian society then those posited laws reflected, were derived from society's natural laws.

The topic is the OP, which invokes natural law, the rule of law is natural law-based..

Chris, Victorian sex laws reflected Victorian society. That has absolutely nothing to do with Natural Law. Please can the abstract philosophy. It's off topic.

The topic is the specious claim you made about Victorian society. You seem to like to make specious claims about the supposed acceptance of gay marriage and homosexuals. Why?

ptif219
02-27-2013, 04:59 PM
Would it matter?

Yes it would answer your dislike of God and Christians

ptif219
02-27-2013, 05:02 PM
@ptif219 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=438) I promise you I am not trying to be a jerk to you or difficult or anything like that. All I am trying to get across is that the bible, or any religious book for that matter, does not and should not decide what is right or wrong in this country. What you believe may not be what someone else believes, and your belief is not somehow more powerful than others just because your belief in your mind is more powerful. A sentence in the bible written thousands of years ago should not determine a person's future or rights in my opinion.

Also to answer your question no I am not an atheist, i'm jewish but I am not overly religious, however, I do believe that the universe is too massive and unique to be an accident and so therefore I do believe that there is something bigger than all of us (God), but what I don't believe in is forcing my religious beliefs on others.

What you mean is your world views matter more than God's word. I showed what God said in Leviticus which would apply to the Jewish people.

I also believe the Jewish people are God's chosen people but they currently need to get back to God

Chloe
02-27-2013, 05:23 PM
Yes it would answer your dislike of God and Christians

I don't dislike god or christians

Chloe
02-27-2013, 06:25 PM
What you mean is your world views matter more than God's word. I showed what God said in Leviticus which would apply to the Jewish people.

I also believe the Jewish people are God's chosen people but they currently need to get back to God

You want jews to get back to god in the way that YOU want them to. Live and let live.

What I mean in my comments is that in this country we do not make decisions based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter what god said since god doesn't decide what our country's laws are or who gets what or when. Religion is a personal thing. If you have beliefs that influence your decisions then that's perfectly fine, but it's not your place to impose those religious beliefs on me or anybody else. So when you say that Jesus said something about a topic it may have a lot of meaning for you personally but it should not decide policy or law that will affect others who do not find meaning in what Jesus said in the Christian bible. That's not me bashing on god or Christians, it's me saying that this country has a freedom of religion, it is secular in design, meaning you can believe whatever you want but it won't be forced on others.

ptif219
02-27-2013, 06:53 PM
I don't dislike god or christians

It sounds like you do. Homosexuality is an abomination to God yet you think it is okay

ptif219
02-27-2013, 06:55 PM
You want jews to get back to god in the way that YOU want them to. Live and let live.

What I mean in my comments is that in this country we do not make decisions based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter what god said since god doesn't decide what our country's laws are or who gets what or when. Religion is a personal thing. If you have beliefs that influence your decisions then that's perfectly fine, but it's not your place to impose those religious beliefs on me or anybody else. So when you say that Jesus said something about a topic it may have a lot of meaning for you personally but it should not decide policy or law that will affect others who do not find meaning in what Jesus said in the Christian bible. That's not me bashing on god or Christians, it's me saying that this country has a freedom of religion, it is secular in design, meaning you can believe whatever you want but it won't be forced on others.

That is false. Only liberals deny the Christian influence in this country and the Christian principals this country was founded on

Chloe
02-27-2013, 07:29 PM
It sounds like you do. Homosexuality is an abomination to God yet you think it is okay

Im sorry but I don't pretend to speak for god nor am i his judge. I don't dislike god, Christians, OR homosexuals. Do unto others....it's more godly than judging others.

Chloe
02-27-2013, 07:32 PM
That is false. Only liberals deny the Christian influence in this country and the Christian principals this country was founded on

Thats great for history, but not for governing others of different beliefs and cultures

KC
02-27-2013, 07:37 PM
Im sorry but I don't pretend to speak for god nor am i his judge. I don't dislike god, Christians, OR homosexuals. Do unto others....it's more godly than judging others.

Amen!

Chris
02-27-2013, 07:42 PM
How can any one speak for God when no one can know God?

Mister D
02-27-2013, 07:44 PM
Thank you, Chloe. Mister D will be the oracle here. :smiley:

Chris
02-27-2013, 07:44 PM
That is false. Only liberals deny the Christian influence in this country and the Christian principals this country was founded on

Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what it uniquely Christian that this country is founded on.

ptif219
02-28-2013, 04:45 PM
Im sorry but I don't pretend to speak for god nor am i his judge. I don't dislike god, Christians, OR homosexuals. Do unto others....it's more godly than judging others.

So you refuse to adhere to the God of the religion you claim to be? Sounds like your politics rule over God

ptif219
02-28-2013, 04:45 PM
Thats great for history, but not for governing others of different beliefs and cultures

Shows you know little how this country was set up

ptif219
02-28-2013, 04:57 PM
Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what it uniquely Christian that this country is founded on.


Maybe this will help you

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

Chris
02-28-2013, 05:39 PM
Maybe this will help you

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding

IOW, you don't know.

Your link goes to this:


Did America have a Christian Founding? Two popular answers to this query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both distort the Founders’ views. There is in fact a great deal of evidence that America’s Founders were influenced by Christian ideas

That in fact runs counter to your claim about "the Christian principals this country was founded on".

The author stakes his claim on whether early Americans were Christian. Again, that does not demonstrate "the Christian principals this country was founded on" nor does it "Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what it uniquely Christian that this country is founded on."

He considers the Puritans, for example. But wait, they largely failed in their main mission to covert native Indians,d they forced religion on their communities, and their brand of Christianity dies out. Roger Williams was successful and it is Roger William's ideas that form the foundational basis not of religion but of religious of and from freedom--Jefferson's wall of separation was derived from Roger William's.

The author then jumps to the Declaration and claims it as Christian rhetoric. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God are not Christian ideas, they are ideas of the Enlightenment, of Science, of Deism.

Then he jumps to "it is perhaps surprising that the Constitution says little about God or religion". Given that the nation was founded, in part, and only part, in not religion but religious freedom, this is hardly surprising at all.

But I leave off there for your author has not once mentioned any of what you claim to be "the Christian principals this country was founded on".

I ask again, "Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what is uniquely Christian that this country is founded on."

Chloe
03-01-2013, 09:16 AM
So you refuse to adhere to the God of the religion you claim to be? Sounds like your politics rule over God

No I'm just not for pushing my religion on you or others, just like you shouldn't push your religion on me or others.

Chloe
03-01-2013, 09:17 AM
Shows you know little how this country was set up

What part of our government or constitution is Christian?

ptif219
03-03-2013, 01:03 PM
IOW, you don't know.

Your link goes to this:



That in fact runs counter to your claim about "the Christian principals this country was founded on".

The author stakes his claim on whether early Americans were Christian. Again, that does not demonstrate "the Christian principals this country was founded on" nor does it "Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what it uniquely Christian that this country is founded on."

He considers the Puritans, for example. But wait, they largely failed in their main mission to covert native Indians,d they forced religion on their communities, and their brand of Christianity dies out. Roger Williams was successful and it is Roger William's ideas that form the foundational basis not of religion but of religious of and from freedom--Jefferson's wall of separation was derived from Roger William's.

The author then jumps to the Declaration and claims it as Christian rhetoric. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God are not Christian ideas, they are ideas of the Enlightenment, of Science, of Deism.

Then he jumps to "it is perhaps surprising that the Constitution says little about God or religion". Given that the nation was founded, in part, and only part, in not religion but religious freedom, this is hardly surprising at all.

But I leave off there for your author has not once mentioned any of what you claim to be "the Christian principals this country was founded on".

I ask again, "Specify what those are. Leave off all that Christianity borrowed or shares with other religions or philosophies. Give us what is uniquely Christian that this country is founded on."

You cherry pick the article that comes to the conclusion that Christian beliefs and Christian moral standards influenced how this country was founded and because of freedom and the church of england made sure no religion could control the government. The democrats have worked hard to destroy the moral factors of this country

ptif219
03-03-2013, 01:06 PM
No I'm just not for pushing my religion on you or others, just like you shouldn't push your religion on me or others.

I am for morals and keeping covenants with God the way they have been for centuries. Gays and Obama want to destroy the marriage vows being a covenant with God and bring it to be an abomination to God

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/01/deadline-arrives-for-white-house-to-weigh-in-on-prop-8-gay-marriage-case/

Chris
03-03-2013, 01:34 PM
You cherry pick the article that comes to the conclusion that Christian beliefs and Christian moral standards influenced how this country was founded and because of freedom and the church of england made sure no religion could control the government. The democrats have worked hard to destroy the moral factors of this country

I didn't cherry pick, ptif, I picked the essential arguments and debunked them.

Still waiting for you to tell us what was uniquely Christian to the founding of this nation. I mean, why, as even your source asks, if it were so would we end up with a sucular Constitution?

ptif219
03-03-2013, 02:19 PM
I didn't cherry pick, ptif, I picked the essential arguments and debunked them.

Still waiting for you to tell us what was uniquely Christian to the founding of this nation. I mean, why, as even your source asks, if it were so would we end up with a sucular Constitution?

The article showed it but you cherry picked where they showed both parts of the argument
http://www.aproundtable.org/issues.cfm?issuecode=history

Chris
03-03-2013, 02:44 PM
The article showed it but you cherry picked where they showed both parts of the argument
http://www.aproundtable.org/issues.cfm?issuecode=history

It showed nothing. If it had you could highlight those unique Christian attributes of influence.

Your second source claims again this:


We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That was Deist, not Christian. Creator refers to the immediately preceding Laws Of Nature and Nature's God.

Next item refers to some Court opinion.

The 1892 item refers to the First Amendments' guaranteed protection of religious liberty. That's not Christian.

The next two again refers to Court opinion.


Try again.



Listen, I have nothing against your faith, I am a firm believer in liberty of conscience, protected by the First Amendment, we are free to worship God or gods are our conscience dictates, or not at all.

But that runs directly counter the 1st commandment.

Chloe
03-03-2013, 03:47 PM
I am for morals and keeping covenants with God the way they have been for centuries. Gays and Obama want to destroy the marriage vows being a covenant with God and bring it to be an abomination to God

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/01/deadline-arrives-for-white-house-to-weigh-in-on-prop-8-gay-marriage-case/

Yeah we are never going to actually see eye to eye on this. Which covenant are you talking about exactly?

ptif219
03-03-2013, 04:46 PM
It showed nothing. If it had you could highlight those unique Christian attributes of influence.

Your second source claims again this:



That was Deist, not Christian. Creator refers to the immediately preceding Laws Of Nature and Nature's God.

Next item refers to some Court opinion.

The 1892 item refers to the First Amendments' guaranteed protection of religious liberty. That's not Christian.

The next two again refers to Court opinion.


Try again.



Listen, I have nothing against your faith, I am a firm believer in liberty of conscience, protected by the First Amendment, we are free to worship God or gods are our conscience dictates, or not at all.

But that runs directly counter the 1st commandment.

So you refuse to accept it when it is shown to you

Chris
03-03-2013, 04:47 PM
So you refuse to accept it when it is shown to you

You've shown nothing, ptif. Nice game you're playing, claiming you posted something of substance when you haven't

ptif219
03-03-2013, 04:58 PM
Yeah we are never going to actually see eye to eye on this. Which covenant are you talking about exactly?

Marriage is a covenant with God

http://preceptaustin.org/the_covenant_of_marriage.htm

http://maranathalife.com/marriage/mar-rel1.htm

http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/marriage/staying-married/commitment/is-your-marriage-based-on-contract-or-covenant#.UTPUuYWG-ds

http://www.cgca.net/serf-publishing/marriagecov.htm

ptif219
03-03-2013, 05:09 PM
You've shown nothing, ptif. Nice game you're playing, claiming you posted something of substance when you haven't

I have shown it you refuse to accept it

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

http://www.faithofourfathers.net/

Chris
03-03-2013, 05:11 PM
I have shown it you refuse to accept it

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

http://www.faithofourfathers.net/

You've shown nothing. As with chloe, you send us off on wild goose chases that turn out to just be opinions like yours, nothing more.

I leave you to your personal faith, you're not interested in discussion.

Chloe
03-03-2013, 05:14 PM
Marriage is a covenant with God

http://preceptaustin.org/the_covenant_of_marriage.htm

http://maranathalife.com/marriage/mar-rel1.htm

http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/marriage/staying-married/commitment/is-your-marriage-based-on-contract-or-covenant#.UTPUuYWG-ds

http://www.cgca.net/serf-publishing/marriagecov.htm

Can you speak from your own point of view though please? I am just asking you about which covenant, since there are many, and what part of the constitution is "christian".

ptif219
03-03-2013, 05:15 PM
you've shown nothing. As with chloe, you send us off on wild goose chases that turn out to just be opinions like yours, nothing more.

I leave you to your personal faith, you're not interested in discussion.

the more i show the more you refuse to accept the facts

ptif219
03-03-2013, 05:16 PM
Can you speak from your own point of view though please? I am just asking you about which covenant, since there are many, and what part of the constitution is "christian".

I have shown proof and like Chris you refuse to accept it

Chloe
03-03-2013, 05:17 PM
I have shown proof and like Chris you refuse to accept it

I just want to hear YOUR opinion. If I were talking to one of my friends I wouldn't give him or her a list of websites to answer a question that they asked me. Can you at least tell me in your opinion what aspects of the US constitution are uniquely Christian please?

ptif219
03-03-2013, 07:12 PM
I just want to hear YOUR opinion. If I were talking to one of my friends I wouldn't give him or her a list of websites to answer a question that they asked me. Can you at least tell me in your opinion what aspects of the US constitution are uniquely Christian please?

The 1st amendment

Chloe
03-03-2013, 07:19 PM
The 1st amendment

Can you go into just a little more detail please? How is the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and so on uniquely "Christian"?

Dr. Who
03-03-2013, 07:25 PM
The 1st amendment


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where is there anything specifically Christian in the text of the 1st Amendment? If you didn't know that the Founding Fathers were Christian, the authors of the above text could have also been Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 07:43 PM
Where is there anything specifically Christian in the text of the 1st Amendment? If you didn't know that the Founding Fathers were Christian, the authors of the above text could have also been Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist.

Could it? Where else was free speech a principle except in the Christian west?

Dr. Who
03-03-2013, 07:49 PM
Could it? Where else was free speech a principle except in the Christian west?
Since it was written in America, any of the above could, theoretically, have been here.

Chloe
03-03-2013, 07:52 PM
Could it? Where else was free speech a principle except in the Christian west?

To be fair Christianity has not been fully embracing of free speech for many parts of its own history. To say that free speech is a principle of Christianity is being narrow in my opinion and an insult to other religions and even non-religions that have embraced free speech throughout their histories as well. It implies that before christianity free speech was not a thought or practice, which just isn't true.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 07:58 PM
Since it was written in America, any of the above could, theoretically, have been here.

Since it was written in 18th Century America by predominantly Protestant Anglo-Saxons it's a product of a Christian civilization. I know iy mat cause some consternation among you but the Bill of Rights etc. bear the hallmarks of a Christian worldview. They do not bear the bear the hallmarks of an Islamic. Jewish, or Buddhist worldview.

Dr. Who
03-03-2013, 08:00 PM
To be fair Christianity has not been fully embracing of free speech for many parts of its own history. To say that free speech is a principle of Christianity is being narrow in my opinion and an insult to other religions and even non-religions that have embraced free speech throughout their histories as well. It implies that before christianity free speech was not a thought or practice, which just isn't true.
Indeed the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 is an example of Christian oppression of freedom of speech.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:01 PM
To be fair Christianity has not been fully embracing of free speech for many parts of its own history. To say that free speech is a principle of Christianity is being narrow in my opinion and an insult to other religions and even non-religions that have embraced free speech throughout their histories as well. It implies that before christianity free speech was not a thought or practice, which just isn't true.

I said that the principle of free speech to which to we adhere originated in a Christian context. That should be obvious unless of course one has an axe to grind.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:02 PM
Indeed the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 is an example of Christian oppression of freedom of speech.

There are many others. So what?

Chloe
03-03-2013, 08:04 PM
I said that the principle of free speech to which to we adhere originated in a Christian context. That should be obvious unless of course one has an axe to grind.

What is the christian context though? The way those amendments are written they are written in basic english and aren't "christian" in its wording at all. Can you go into a little more detail about the context? It's not as obvious as I think you think it is.

Dr. Who
03-03-2013, 08:13 PM
Since it was written in 18th Century America by predominantly Protestant Anglo-Saxons it's a product of a Christian civilization. I know iy mat cause some consternation among you but the Bill of Rights etc. bear the hallmarks of a Christian worldview. They do not bear the bear the hallmarks of an Islamic. Jewish, or Buddhist worldview.
Considering that the Christians who settled the US were not examples of the European worldview, but rather fugitives from same, they were not exactly representative. Anyone else of other faiths who came to America in similar circumstances may be equally unrepresentative of the common view.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:15 PM
What is the christian context though? The way those amendments are written are written in basic english and aren't "christian" in its wording at all. Can you go into a little more detail about the context? It's not as obvious as I think you think it is.

That would be a Christian culture and society like the one the men who wrote the documents in question came from. Their consciousness was steeped in Christianity and Christianity informed the values they held dear whether they were men of faith or not (incidentally, most of them were). As members of a Christian society it's certain that the founders internalized Christian modes of thought.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:17 PM
Considering that the Christians who settled the US were not examples of the European worldview, but rather fugitives from same, they were not exactly representative. Anyone else of other faiths who came to America in similar circumstances may be equally unrepresentative of the common view.

They were very much exemplars of European intellectual and political movements. How could it be otherwise? They were Europeans and overwhelmingly Christian Europeans.

Chris
03-03-2013, 08:21 PM
I just want to hear YOUR opinion. If I were talking to one of my friends I wouldn't give him or her a list of websites to answer a question that they asked me. Can you at least tell me in your opinion what aspects of the US constitution are uniquely Christian please?


The 1st amendment

He speaks. But I already debunked that.

But let's do it again.

According to Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:2 the first and foremost commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me." One and only one God.

But the first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." You can worship any god or none at all.

The two say the opposite.

Q.E.D.

Chloe
03-03-2013, 08:22 PM
That would be a Christian culture and society like the one the men who wrote the documents in question came from. Their consciousness was steeped in Christianity and Christianity informed the values they held dear whether they were men of faith or not (incidentally, most of them were). As members of a Christian society it's certain that the founders internalized Christian modes of thought.

Right, but that does not mean that it translates through their pen, or even that it should translate through their pen. Does the giant sculpture of Moses with the 10 commandments at the U.S. capital make the supreme court and congress bound to the Torah just because of its connection to Judaism? Why should words in the 1st amendment be tied automatically to Christianity just because a possible Christian wrote it? Do my words on here and the contexts that I use, sound or read, Jewishly?

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:23 PM
Mind you, I am not saying America is a Christian country by design or intention. All I'm saying is the historical context is a Christian one and it's no accident that values, such as free speech, individualism, equality, and universalism were championed in a Christian context. They grew out of various strains of Christian thought and belief.

Dr. Who
03-03-2013, 08:25 PM
They were very much exemplars of European intellectual and political movements. How could it be otherwise? They were Europeans and overwhelmingly Christian Europeans.
Who for the most part eschewed the politics of their homelands. Hence the first amendment and freedom of religion and speech which was oppressed in their birthplaces. While they may have been Christian, their ideals were humanist.

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:28 PM
Right, but that does not mean that it translates through their pen, or even that it should translate through their pen. Does the giant sculpture of Moses with the 10 commandments at the U.S. capital make the supreme court and congress bound to the Torah just because of its connection to Judaism? Why should words in the 1st amendment be tied automatically to Christianity just because a possible Christian wrote it? Do my words on here and the contexts that I use, sound or read, Jewishly?

I haven't suggested that you're bound to anything. That kind of paranoia comes across as very Jewish. :wink: The values expressed in our Bill of Rights are not the product of a Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim worldview. Do you seriously disagree with that? Why?

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:29 PM
Who for the most part eschewed the politics of their homelands. Hence the first amendment and freedom of religion and speech which was oppressed in their birthplaces. While they may have been Christian, their ideals were humanist.

It's also no accident that humanism appeared in Christendom. :smiley:

Chris
03-03-2013, 08:31 PM
That would be a Christian culture and society like the one the men who wrote the documents in question came from. Their consciousness was steeped in Christianity and Christianity informed the values they held dear whether they were men of faith or not (incidentally, most of them were). As members of a Christian society it's certain that the founders internalized Christian modes of thought.

Those men were also "steeped" in the Enlightenment, Science, Natural Rights. Moreover Christianity was "steeped" in all its influences, Judaism, Greek mysticism, and so much more, to the point I dare say nothing is uniquely Christian.

That's the problem with pfi's claims, they're so general as to be meaningless. Oh, look, the Declaration says "Creator"!

Mister D
03-03-2013, 08:34 PM
Those men were also "steeped" in the Enlightenment, Science, Natural Rights. Moreover Christianity was "steeped" in all its influences, Judaism, Greek mysticism, and so much more, to the point I dare say nothing is uniquely Christian.

All of which developed in a Christian context. :smiley:

Guys, it's wrongheaded to suggest that the US was designed as a Christian country. It's also wrongheaded (and patently ridiculous) to suggest that Christianity has not informed the creation of this society and the values we hold dear at every level.