|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
May I modify the first one slightly?
"The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear, hate and change them. Forcibly coerce them to live your lifestyle, in other words.
But yes, a very true observation.
So we all agree if I disagree with a person's ideology or lifestyle that does NOT mean I hate or fear them?
Doesn't mean you don't either. Hate and fear come through from our actions and the way we treat people. Actively working to deny something of value to another isn't very nice (like Rick Warren supporting Prop 8). If you stood around with signs saying "so-and-so is going to burn in hell" then again I'd say, yes, that's hate. If you call a lifestyle an abomination or claim it is going to bring about the end of civilization, those aren't terribly nice things to say either.
I didn't call anything an abomination. That's in the Bible.
Well yeah, the bible being a perfect example of hating a lifestyle you disagree with.
But the trend of this thread is correct, everyone has the right to disapprove of anything they wish, when it becomes evil is when people choose to curtail the personal liberties of others because they dissaprove.
I was referring to a generic you, not the specific you.
Depends on whether you support legislation that "disagrees" with their lifestyle.
And you can feel however you please about someone's lifestyle - but if you are offensive while publicly voicing your displeasure, then your motivation for finger-pointing will certainly be called into question.
Again, no one cares if you are fearful of it or hate it or not. The issue is that you can't make laws barring people from having the same rights as you. That's it.
Then why do you say people fear or hate those they disagree with?
Because for the most part people fear change or things that they are not used to or may be different.
Let's quit beating around the bush. What you and Rick Warren are really saying is you can accept gays, as long as they don't have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. And you don't want to be criticized for it, because you still think you are a compassionate person.
Are you certain it is the "legal" rights aspect of the issue, and not the altering of the historically accepted meaning of "marriage" that most hetros disagree with, and have strong convictions about? And was perhaps the issue that Rick Warren, the OP, and others have?
Otherwise, the frequently suggested "civil union" alternatives would seem an acceptable compromise.
It appears that you are saying that because someone does not agree with what you believe is right - they cannot be a good and compassionate person.
Also consider that MY thoughts on the matter are relative to the thoughts and conversations of "most" folks - not those of the zealots and wingnuts that exist on either side of the debate.
Not sure you can really define a historically accepted definition of marriage at all. You can pick different times and places and find very different notions about it. Of course the bigger problem is that whatever definition you choose it has never really been "accepted" since it has always been dependent on force. Several religions have historically been hostile to homosexuality, which means opposing the "accepted" definition means you get hung from a tree. The fact that Christianity has always held the same view doesn't make them right, it just means they've always been wrong. Without such opposition, same-sex couples probably would have always been happily getting married and we wouldn't have to bother with it at all.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I was too vague. I was speaking only from my knowledge and perspective. Which of course is primarily that of an American. I have not researched the issue.
But even with the understanding that culturally, and historically, there have been variations of it's meaning - can you point out instances where it was used to mean something other than the union of a man and a women? In the context of this discussion of course.
And as for your preposition that the acceptance of the "traditional" meaning of marriage is primarily due to the "force" of opposing views - well, that seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact. Unless acceptance of a societal/cultural group's mores as a given to participate in that group is disputed.
But, steering back to the OP's quote - I think it is only an agenda-driven stretch that can twist it into the picture of an insincere and/or facetious statement. It seems like an extremely profitable way to think - to me anyway.
Well, first, I don't have any issue with the quote and would agree that it is a profitable way to think. However, there are lots of instances where people say that quote but do so only to hide their behavior. Take Rick Warren, for example, who said the quote. Rick Warren supported California's Prop 8, which essentially meant he was willing to walk up to a same-sex couple and tell them that he voted to prevent them from being able to get married. Now is that hateful or mean? I wouldn't say so, but at the same time, it sure as heck doesn't count as nice and compassionate.
As for marriage being "accepted." Let's look at it in a different way. Imagine a thousand years ago someone invents a game called Superball and defines it as a game played between people with brown eyes and hazel eyes and simultaneously they enact a law saying that anyone with blue eyes caught playing the game would be put to death. This went on for a thousand years until eventually people started to say, "hey this doesn't really make sense that blue-eyed people can't play Superball." The response, of course, from the black-eyed and hazel-eyed people is, "tough luck. That's the historically accepted definition of the game. You can't come in and change it." Yes, they are correct, it is the accepted definition but that's because anyone who might have defined it differently were killed (often in very humiliating and painful ways).
That isn't an accepted definition. That's a coerced definition. We could have defined it differently. We could have said anyone can play, in which case, everyone would have played and lived happily ever after. Same-sex couples have always been around and have always wanted to join into relationships the same as anyone else and if not for the risk of having one's ballsack hacked off and getting hung by your feet until you die, they always would have. And so the problem isn't of same-sex couples today trying to change the definition of marriage. The problem is that long ago Christians changed the definition from what it should have been. It is long past time to correct that mistake.
junkseller, my post was about public acceptance of the or another definition of a ritual called "Marriage" since the birth of the USA. If the concept was a mistake made long ago as you stated, that mistake is being examined. We in the USA don't want to share rights equally with people who have historically been denied those rights. The rights of marriage is no exception. I suggested that if the name of the right given was different then the rights granted when this experiment started here in America, maybe it can be easier to except. Was you comment in disagreement or in addition to what I posted?
I was responding to a post by GA Anderson, though I suppose what I said is applicable to your point as well. The 'accepted' definition of marriage has for some time been accepted because not accepting it meant imprisonment or death. Without the threat of imprisonment or death, same-sex couples always would have married. An 'accepted' definition guaranteed by violence isn't something I find worthy of defense.
There are many cultures where same sex relationships were acceptable and yet marriage still remained between a man and a woman. It isn't marriage that is the interest but rather compelling upon the entire society a culture where in standards are eliminated and all actions that make people "feel good" about themselves becomes, not only acceptable, but sanctioned.
Public sex, consensual sex slavery, public humiliation for sexual gratification why are these not acceptable? After all they are all adults and they consent to these actions? Who is the society at large to deny them their free actions?
About 15 years ago there was a woman who found someone on line to sexually torture her to death. It was consensual, it was her deepest desire, it made her happy, why was it the interest of the government at all? When I asked a sexual libertarian if this was wrong, she said no. Yet the partner who fulfilled the woman's sexual fantasy and had written correspondence proving her request was convicted. Was that wrong, After all it was two adults mutually consenting. Are there limits on what one can do?
Ancient Rome had same sex marriage, unfortunately after Rome became Christian the Theodosian Code was passed which sentenced all same sex married coupled to death also several American Indian tribes practiced same sex marriage, so no marriage was not always between a man and a woman it was forcibly made that way by Christians.
Of course there are limits. The problem is you seem to consider the desires, wants, hopes, dreams, etc. of same-sex couples to be different than opposite-sex couples. they aren't, so there is no elimination of standards, there is no devolvement into pure hedonism. In fact, allowing same-sex marriage, is adding a standard: equality. That's a good thing.
We deny all sorts of free actions. Most often because they have the potential to harm others. Absent harm to others, I'd say yes, we have no business in it.
The application for marriage asks nothing about any internal state. It simply asks sex, age and that participants not be immediate family. Whether or not one is homosexual is not mentioned.
No one is barred from obtaining a marriage license if the aforementioned conditions are met. Just like any other kind of license, there are conditions required for the issuance of a license.
All other conditions from medical information to property inheritance can be mitigated by legal means entirely separate from any discussion of marriage. So we are left only with indefinable, personal and subjective, hardly a basis for a durable social institution.
If this is true for same-sex marriage than it is also true for opposite-sex marriage, so you really haven't gotten anywhere. What is the basis for opposite sex marriage being a durable social institution outside of the indefinable, personal, and subjective? I thought that was the whole point.
So, because Rick Warren has the courage to vote his convictions, and he is publicly honest about it - then he is not "nice and compassionate?" Would he only be "nice and compassionate" if he refrained from voting, or voicing his opinion? Or must he toss away his beliefs and submit to that of others to be nice and compassionate?
That doesn't sound right.
Have you checked his position on this? Is he against any kind of legal union, or just the union termed as marriage?
We don't need an analogy or hypothetical here, deal with the realities of the issue instead of "supposing" this or that.
Exactly when did the Christians make this mistake? You refer to " a long time ago," but when is it you say they did this. (the Christians)
And who is it that has determined this was a mistake? You?
It seems to have been accepted as "not a mistake" for a very long time, by a whole lot of people, from many different nations/societal groups, and cultures.
*Note that the "people believed the earth was flat too" comparison isn't valid here. This is not a discussion of scientific fact, but of accepted societal norms. (We should be so lucky as to be able to form our opinions on this using established "fact")
Who do you see as the arbiter that is more knowledgeable than that pedigree, and can rightly point to a period in time and say there was the mistake?
Were there no other cultures with the concept of marriage before Christians came along. Or were the Biblical times the birth of the actual term marriage? I don't know the answer to that, if you do, then perhaps I need to look into it a little more
Your last reference to "correction" leaves a "very wide open" door to walk through with extensions of your logic. Extensions that are extremely crude if used as examples in comparison to the "gay marriage issue"
Perhaps a least offensive example would be, Does your logic support the marriage of XXXXXXXX too?
(no I won't go there - but I bet your mind did)
But just what are the limits of your correction of this ages-old mistake?
If you vote to put a sign up, or keep a sign up, on the door where people go to get married which says, "Straights Only," then you are not being compassionate towards gay people. If you disagree, then I'd love to hear the explanation as to how exactly that IS compassionate, because I just don't see it.
That is not in anyway an argument that anyone should not vote how they see fit. Please do. They just aren't going to convince me that there is any compassion in that vote.
Answering when would require a book. The Christian fascination with micromanaging people's bedrooms is a truly extensive and astonishing history. The first major laws were from the 'Christian' 4th century emperors, especially Theodosious:
"All those whose shameful habit it is to condemn the male body to suffer an alien sex in the manner of women, for they appear to be in no way different from women, shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people." (Theodosian Code 9.7.6).
These attitudes and laws expanded with the increasing dominion of the church until the glory days of the 12th and 13th century when the church became grand masters of testicle removal and human barbequing.
Me along with Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington, District of Colombia, and probably a plurality of American citizens.
Well there again is the word accepted. Accept this or die, to me, is not a legitimate claim to acceptability. Pagan Europeans, Greeks, and Romans didn't seem to have any problem with homosexuality, and yes, same-sex partners did join together in manners and ceremonies much the same as anyone else did.
Well I could point to all of those aforementioned countries and states, but ultimately, the only arbiter I am really pointing to is myself. I see my brother or sister in pain and know it is wrong. The pedigree of my own heart is all I need for that.
The actual term "marriage" I think was first used around the 13th century or so, but most, if not all, cultures have a concept of marriage.
The door left open, in my opinion, leads to nothing but equality.
Yes and no. The logic isn't that everyone should do what they want. The logic includes preventing, when necessary, behavior that is harmful to others. Do same-sex couples getting married harm anyone? No, so allow it.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "I bet your mind did." Sounds kind of insulting to be honest, but I'll assume I'm just misinterpreting it.
The limits are when everyone is free and equal.
Yes, you did misinterpret that. It was not intended as any kind of slander or insult.
It appears we are at "loggerheads" here. You intentions seem sincere, but it is obvious that our perspectives have different parameters.
But at least it was a civil conversation, best wishes.
The entire argument isn't about equality before the law it is about demanding that all of society be compelled to accept what has never been accepted before a definition of marriage other than male and female spouses. Even if all legal barriers were removed marriage would still be the words, practice, institution and fundamental, as well as, essential, ancient human cultural arrangement. The fashion of the moment is to pressure the society to conform to the desires of a tiny minority in the name of tolerance.
The false comparison to miscegenation laws is merely an attempt to distort not clarify. No homosexual is barred from marrying. There is nothing in marriage that requires happiness, sex or love. Marriage is merely, without subterfuge or distortion, a sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. Nothing more and nothing less to the legal, civil society. It is only those two individuals who marry who can place a personal partnership definition of the expectations of that marriage.
Some marry for sex. Some marry for money, children, safety, stability, etc.... There is no limit of restriction placed upon all these individual and personal definitions by the application for marriage. That application only requires that the two people entering the relationship be one man and one woman, not immediately related, of marriageable age and not entering into this arrangement for purposes of evasion.
No where does an application for marriage ask one's sexual orientation - where is the inequality?
Accepted definitions don't mean right definitions, especially when said definitions are compelled through violence. Homosexuals once were (and still are) killed and imprisoned for being what they are.
Constitutional protections don't only work for the majorities. If two people want to define marriage simply as being between two people, and if same-sex persons want to then get married, no one has any right to deny them that. That reality is as plain as day. The only reason for which you could deny them that is if the state has a legitimate interest to protect. They don't. You don't have to accept it, but you do have to get out of its way.
Also, you may not have noticed but it isn't really a minority opinion anymore. A recent poll even found that a plurality of under-50 Republicans support same-sex marriage. Voters under 30 support is up at 73%.
Two people who want a marriage preformed can have a marriage performed no matter all other circumstances, just can't have that marriage recognized by the civil authority.
Is it only marriage that anyone's desire to engage in open to action no matter what the vast human tradition?
Why can they not deny civil marriage to two people of the same sex? After all we deny civil marriage to immediate kin. We limit civil marriage to a specific age. We deny civil marriage to more than two people. Isn't it more arbitrary to restrict marriage to just two instead of three? Isn't it more arbitrary to restrict marriage to unrelated people, after all doesn't a father have his daughters best interest at heart, know her for the most significant portion of her premarried life and love her?
We deny people who want to marry every day and have since time immemorial. As for homosexuals being killed for who they are - the government of the United States never had a death penalty for homosexuality. Actually, Americans used to murder Mormons for their religious practices, especially polygamy.
Who is the government to restrict marriage at all, ever under any circumstances? When a definition is destroyed the thing defined no longer exists and a new thing takes its place. It is marriage itself which is being altered irreparably.
As for majority opinions, it was the majority opinion that homosexuals be imprisoned, that Blacks were inferior, that slavery is an viable and important institution and that witches by killed. I don't give a hang about majority opinions - they tend to be capricious. We do nothing meaningful by popular opinion.
This is the most laughable argument I have encountered in some time, yeah we had slaves for a long time too, we denied women the vote for a long time and those things were wrong too "we have done this for a long time" is not an argument it doesn't prove morality it adds no value to the practice at all so basically your posts have no argument at all.
Argument by contradiction. The argument is as stated that majority opinion is not a bases for making a change in a fundamental, ancient, venerated pillar of western civilization. Destroying marriage, which tossing out the definition would do, takes an ax to the root of human society.
Majority has nothing to do with morality, we are arguing the morality of the issue, again there is nothing about age that gives something morality either, also you are going to need to prove the trash about destroying society because flowering societies had it before the rise of Christianity and flowering societies have had it for significant time now, so you are empirically wrong.
"Also, you may not have noticed but it isn't really a minority opinion anymore. A recent poll even found that a plurality of under-50 Republicans support same-sex marriage. Voters under 30 support is up at 73%."
To quote one of your earlier posts.
It isn't majority opinion from which I would argue but rather from the longevity, durability, scope, reach, depth and quality of a civilization. Western and Christian civilization created science, engineering, rule of law, political and economic freedom, elevated status for women, an end to slavery, elected government, an end to child labor, etc.... What other civilization has done more to realize human freedom? One of the root institutions of that civilization is marriage. Not all civilizations are created equal. Not all current cultures in the world are equal.
What flourishing society has homosexual marriage? Europe was more vibrant on the eve of the First World War than it is now. Flourishing Rome - before the first millenium Rome was gone. Romans also practiced bestiality, slavery, rape, incest, etc.... Flourishing Amer-Indian society? There was not one over arching culture among Amer-indians and not one religion or one set of practices. Many tribes also regularly practiced cannibalism, rape, incest, slavery, mutilating women, etc....
Hardly the hallmarks of healthy cultures. Once the idea that there is an objective reality is removed and only person pleasure becomes the standard where by all actions are measured what limit become legitimate?
I would encourage more thinking and less vitriol.
I never wrote that, you aren't quoting me, in fact I was not even aware of that study.
Christian civilization was a complete failure, it's institution brought about the dark ages and the loss of the millennia of knowledge we had gathered, science was pre Christian (Ancient Greek) Engineering was pre Christian (probably Mesopotamian certainly Egyptian, ever seen a pyramid?) rule of law (Egyptian pre Christian) Economic freedom (Persian pre Christian) elevated status for women (India pre Christian under Buddhist kingdoms) Outlawing Slavery (Persian Pre Christian) Political and religious freedom was established under Greek rule (pre Christian) Christians then outlawed those things.
SO wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong etc.
Rome was the mightiest civilization of all time, was it perfect? No but it was incredibly adavanced for it's time.
I noted it was some American Indian tribes and your characterization of their culture is blatantly insulting.
Norway for example has the highest quality of life THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN it has legalized same sex marriage, your argument is empirically wrong, it's not a matter of opinion.
Objective reality is that marriage is the bond between two loving and consensual people, nothing else it is not defined by any religion and it has in several civilizations (also Chinese Dynasties for example) has included same sex marriage.
So your argument was same sex marriage is wrong because that has never been what marriage is, we established that is irrelevant (age does not determine morality) and also false (several civilizations did).
Then you attributed a whole list of things to western Christian society none of which it created or invented.
Doing good so far man
We CAN deny things to people, but it has to be based upon protecting a legitimate state interest. We prevent incestual relationships due to a belief (probably a wrong one) that it poses genetic harm to children. We limit relationships by age for the same reason--a state interest in protecting children from being taken advantage of. We shouldn't (but do all the time) restrict access based simply upon distaste. "I don't like that relationship" is not a legitimate state interest to protect.I'm sure that is comforting for all those who have been killed for what they are.The only way that marriage can be destroyed by allowing same-sex couples to marry is if you believe that same-sex couples TAINT the institution. Alternatively, you could believe, as I do, that allowing same-sex couples to marry ELEVATES the institution. That choice is yours to make, but what you can't do is make that decision for others.
Neither that quote, nor I , said that. That's your slanted perception talking.
How did this turn into a gay marriage forum?
Oh that's right. It's the only thing the left wants to talk about right now.
My response spoke of it because I wanted to reply to *peoplepower, but researched the quote first, so I would not look too much sillier than I already am.
I was not sure that was the intent of the quote, because gay had not been mentioned in the thread until *peoplepower brought it up.
That quote, from Rick Warren's site, was used in the context of his feelings about homosexuality and/or gay marriage.
Well, Rick Warren is somewhat well known for talking about the issue, gay marriage is a currently relevant topic, and the argument presented in the quote from Warren is most often used in the debate about same-sex marriage.
Plus, your posts tend to be exceptionally vague. This post includes a relatively broad and generic statement and is entitled "some thoughts..." If you had any specific place you wanted the post to go or not go, than I'd recommend providing some actual direction.
Well, the quote had nothing to do with gay marriage. I'm sorry. Next time I will try to get more specific since abstract ideas don't appear to be your strong suit.
The inequality is quite obviously in not being able to marry one's chosen life partner.
Define lifestyle. I disagree with a terrorist's lifestyle. Do I hate them? No, but they should be tried in the international court for crimes against humanity.
Lifestyle here is defined as "sexual orientation." I am a political junkie, and I am very familiar with the way people very disingenuously use this quote. Unfortunately, being gay is not a choice, so calling it a lifestyle is strange. One could mean the subculture of the homosexual community, but this isn't the way most people against marriage equality use the term.
It's also much easier now to see how absurd the first claim Rick Warren makes is. If you disagree with someone's sexual orientation, you must hate them. HA! That brings out the absurdity quite nicely.
The argument goes like this. The conservative christian judges someone based on "the Bible" (as if it's one monolithic book), which asserts homosexuality is immoral. They say the homosexual is CHOOSING his sexual orientation, even though the christian uttering such words never chose to be "straight." Since it's a choice to be gay, the same way many other "immoral actions" are a choice, the conservative christian claims they are doing nothing more than the person who calls an alcoholic immoral. They don't hate the alcoholic; they simply disagree with his alcoholism.
Of course, there is no evidence homosexuality is a choice, and it's unmistakably obvious to anyone who has read the least bit of psychology or talked to a gay person at all. If one truly believes homosexuality is a choice, it's sheer willful ignorance or psychological resistance that I am not equipped to deal with.
Barefootfae: With all due respect, I'm not trying to hijack your forum. I believe as GA Anderson and Sooner28 stated that is what Rick Warren meant by the quote.
It's not about the sanctity of marriage. Here is what I mean about Equal Civil Rights:
My wife worked for an estate attorney who did trusts. She told me the story of a couple who had been together for many years. One partner was in the hospital for a terminal condition. The hospital would not allow the partner to visit the other partner in the ICU because she was not next of kin. They said she had no legal right. When she passed away, she was not able to inherit any of her partner's property and assets. It all went to the next of kin, even though there was a trust established. She could have inherited it however, if she could come up with the funds to pay the estate tax, which was several thousands dollars. If they were a legally married couple, it would have been zero. As a result, she was left with nothing.
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
The following link is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-o … ed-couples
If Gay couples had all the civil and legal rights to the state of marriage as straight couples, would that be excepted by all concern? I think not. Maybe if another letter other than "M" was placed before the "arriage" , in the word marriage, straights won,t be against Gay ?arriage
Exactly people. It's unequal treatment before the law, for no other reason than prejudice.
What he meant by it is stop calling people racists and homophobes because they do not subscribe to the lifestyle. That's what he meant.
They aren't feared. They aren't hated. They are disagreed with.
That was half of what he said. Which is fine, but you can't claim compassion unless you are actually nice to people.
No disagreeing is fine, attempting to keep them unequal under the law is the mark of a racist or a homophobe, if you supported a law that black people could not get married you would be a racist, if you support a law that denies gay people that right you are just as bad and a homophobe.
Funny, because the places that have marriage equality, and some have had it for quite a while, don;t seem very "destroyed".
How vibrant is European societies that have "marriage equality" (what ever that actually means)? The Euro-zone is in full collapse. If not for the Muslim immigrants and the old Warsaw Pact countries, Europe would be in population collapse. It is interesting that the populations the most vibrant are the ones who support marriage.
For ever country that has "marriage equality" there is another that does not and is vibrant and growing. Marriage is in full retreat through out most of the world, especially Europe. When did this start? When it became acceptable to believe that men and women are not different in any way and to eliminate from our society any notion that was the case.
Give it time. Marriage is a long standing institution in western civilization and it will take time to complete its destruction.
The countries that have legalized it are universally doing better than those around it which have not.
Universally? Belgium has, Germany has not. Universally? As for within the United States, those states that have barred same-sex marriage are doing better than those who have not, in the main.
As for your false information regarding same-sex marriage in Rome. Legal civil marriage was limited to a Roman man and a Roman woman. No other pairing was legally acceptable, regardless of Nero's crudities.
As for characterizing practices among Amer-indian tribes all the mentioned practices did exist at one time or another. Perhaps a little familiarity with Amer-indian practices would help you out.
The Pyramids or the Brooklyn Bridge, which is a structure constructed with techniques handed on to everyone who sought an education in them? Which one is the product of a civilization that refined, perfected, recorded and duplicated by a clear method the science required for building a better bridge. Which civilization treated knowledge like the property of society rather than a priestly class?
It is almost impossible to define best when it comes to something so complex as civilizations. But more importantly, why does it matter? It's like being in an ice cream shop and the guy next to you is arguing that chocolate is superior to all other flavors. Dude, who cares, I'm trying to eat my 41 flavor ice cream cone and I think you are missing the whole point of ice cream.
"As for within the United States, those states that have barred same-sex marriage are doing better than those who have not, in the main. "
What? Uh, Red States have higher levels of poverty, teen pregnancy, violence, and obesity. They also take more in taxes from the federal government than they pay! This is common knowledge. Asserting something that is so patently false severely weakens your credibility.
I can respect someone I have honest disagreements with, but using bogus information that is easily refutable is ridiculous, especially when google makes the said information so easily available.
Everybody is tap dancing around the issue. The Supreme Court is deliberating DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which is a current law. It defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If it is ruled unconstitutional then same sex couples will be given the same federal rights as opposite sex couples. That means that 1,138 laws that current protect the rights of opposite sex marriage will be available to same sex marriage. Because it is federal law, it will be nation wide.
It has nothing to do with the interpretation of the bible as to how marriage is defined. The bible contains laws used by the churches not by the constitution. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, there is no reference to the bible in the constitution. I also believe Rick Warren's reference to "life style" in his quote is code for saying "gay." If people who don't support gay marriage still want to say they are compassionate people, then so be it. But they are not compassionate about this specific issue.
I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision on this. Some of the conservative justice's hesitancy is worrisome.
You're absolutely right that the Bible is not mentioned in the constitution at all! The first amendment establishment clause explicitly states: "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."
Don't make laws based on religion. If there is a moral grievance that just happens to overlap with a religions injunction, such as not killing, then it's perfectly legitimate to base law on "religion." (Yes i've had people on hubpages use this argument before; that's why I'm even bringing it up)
However, when there is a specifically religious belief, such as contraception, gay marriage, or the like, religious has no place at the law-making table. I'm also glad you are able to see through Warren's charade of chicanery. You always have a clear view of things.
Actually, he hit it on the head.....
In fact, the SC is actually less likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage merely because it would mean invalidating so many laws.
In other words, the SC doesn't want to make a common sense ruling because God forbid some lawmakers have to work or something...
Incorrect, as usual, over turning Doma would not undo all state laws regarding homosexual "marriage." It would, however, cause a firestorm of lawsuits in, among, between all civil entities, federal, state and local. To destroy the definition of a long practice in western civilization will cause turmoil and a political blood letting the likes the country hasn't seen since the Great Depression or the Civil War - Democrats need to tread lightly.
The earlier hearing regarding California Proposition 8 suggests that Sonia Sotomayor may not be as dependable a vote as some would wish and that Anthony Kennedy has already decided it is not an issue for the Supreme Court. That makes six.
If DOMA is overturned and the SC declares banning gay marriage unconstitutional, state laws banning it are therefore unconstitutional.
You're right, there would be a fierce battle. However, those contesting the ruling would most likely lose.
These are two individual and separate cases. DOMA may be ruled unconstitutional without subsequently ruling that states that affirm marriage do so unconstitutionally. If you read this thread, carefully, if at all, you will discover that the original point I made was that overturning DOMA does not end marriage and create homosexual marriage.
As a side bar, the Executive refusing to defend a Law in the Supreme Court is an abrogation of its constitutional charge and should result in a sanction by Congress. But these are strange days and Obama is infallible.
Or it may be because the Supreme Court is allowed to interpret the law however it chooses.
If DOMA is overturned, it will establish that defining marriage as one man and one women is unconstitutional. Hence, it will effectively make it unconstitutional everywhere.
Oh my you are delusional "blood letting" yeah when several countries and states passed same sex marriage laws they just exploded into violence... wait no they didn't.
by Evan G Rogers7 years ago
Rand Paul recently tried to filibuster the passage of the continuation of completely tyrannical aspects of the Patriot Act. But both the House and the Senate were able to end it and pass the...
by marinealways248 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
by Steven Escareno4 years ago
According to young turks news and various other sources, many christians and muslims are outright p***ed about the upcoming "Noah" film starring Russell Crowe because they claim it's historically inaccurate to...
by SilentMagenta3 years ago
Can someone tell me why president obama is hated so much?
by Muldanianman7 years ago
I have just commented on a hub, which suggested that President Obama is the incarnation of the devil. I did not agree, and said so, and needless to say my comment has not been approved. I do wonder why...
by Sam Dolloff6 years ago
Why is there always so much hate?Why in a world full of "acceptence" there is so much hate for those that are different? Especially from those screaming for "equal rights".... It makes me sad
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.