|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
The practise of religious belief dictating human and civil rights is what drove the pilgrims to the boats. And although the current debate isn't directly analogous, the lessons learned are still valuable and should be headed.
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia; doe, by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland, the fiftie-fourth, Anno. Domini, 1620."
As quoted form the Mayflower Compact you see that the real reason that they wanted to establish a colony is in that first line. Although it may not be directly relevant it should be noted. There is no freedom of marriage listed in any law. You can not establish marriage but only recongnize it for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by texasrealtor:
The whole debate is that the gay community does not want the term "Civil Union" but insist on the term marriage.
You don't cite any source on this so I'll assume this is your opinion. The fact is that "marriage" is the only term given to both the religious ceremony and the civil union - when you go to city hall, you apply for a "marriage" license, not a civil union license. I don't believe that gays are demanding anything in the way of terminology - if they expect to get the same rights, by definition they have to call it marriage. This debate is not about semantics IMO.
Quote:
They know that this will stir up deep emotions with the US Judeo-Christian majority and keep this issue front and center in the press.
As you allude to, the Judeo-Christian community does not speak with one voice on the issue of gay rights; and I challenge you to support that the view you attribute to them is the majority view. I suspect it is in fact a very vocal minority. The majority viewpoint is more likely to be ambivalence, as you point out later in your post.
Various religious factions are greatly divided on everything from the ordainment of gay ministers to the issue of gay marriage - and that is certainly for the various religions to sort out for themeselves - or not. But IMO a viewpoint based on personal religious belief (majority or not) should not have any standing with regards to the assertion of civil rights under the constitution as amended. IMO Bush as President should be promoting tolerance and the expansion of civil rights, not his own personal religious belief.
Quote:
It would have been relatively easy to legalize civil unions on a state by state basis, because the majority of people in the US wouldn't find it offensive and an attack on their core religious beliefs.
This statement at face value seems to contradict your prior one about the "Judeo Christian majority;" but I do believe it is more correct.
If you recall however what started this thread, it seems that the "no gay marriage" element is on the offensive and, in Oregon at least, is intent on using the state's constitution to preempt any other attempt by gays to achieve their objective; making no distinction between the civil and religious defintions of marriage in the process.
The practise of religious belief dictating human and civil rights is what drove the pilgrims to the boats. And although the current debate isn't directly analogous, the lessons learned are still valuable and should be headed.
Of course these are my opinions. Do you think that the majority of Judeo-Christians are racists? My "opinion" is that most would not object to "Civil Unions", but yoiu don't see alot of high profile gays arguing for civil unions because there is not alot of publicity.(IMO)
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by DESIGN:
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
The practise of religious belief dictating human and civil rights is what drove the pilgrims to the boats. And although the current debate isn't directly analogous, the lessons learned are still valuable and should be headed.
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia; doe, by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland, the fiftie-fourth, Anno. Domini, 1620."
As quoted form the Mayflower Compact you see that the real reason that they wanted to establish a colony is in that first line. Although it may not be directly relevant it should be noted. There is no freedom of marriage listed in any law. You can not establish marriage but only recongnize it for what it is.
The boats I was referring to were the boats to Holland. The people who would later travel to Cape Cod in fact first went to Holland where they found the religious freedom they sought.
The only reason they later went to America was because they didn't like the Dutch lifestyle, or the fact that their kids were learning to speak Dutch - but primarily it was a business decision.
Their trip was financed by a group of English investors called the Merchant Adventurers and in return they worked for their investors for 7 years.
What you quote is the 17th century equivalent of the "policially correct" rationale crafted for public and government consumption.
The pilgrims had all the religious freedom they wanted in Holland - travelling to America was essentially a business decision.
And you could be right about no law concerning right to marry - but isn't that the absolute nature of advancing civil rights? Society decides that something's right (based on the current situation, not necessarily on what was written 300 years ago) ... it's put into the constitution if required, and then you write the laws to ensure the rightis upheld?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367 |
You are correct about basing our laws around our current society but as Americans we also base our laws on a document that is over 200 years old. It is a balance of new problems and our founding principals. In that light we deserve as Americans to vote on such an important issue. It should not be dictated by any group. The final and highest authority that our government can give is to amend the constitution. If it is truly a vocal minority in our country that wants to protect traditional marriage then a vote would show that. However, if the opposite is true then that will be brought to light as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by DESIGN:
You are correct about basing our laws around our current society but as Americans we also base our laws on a document that is over 200 years old. It is a balance of new problems and our founding principals. In that light we deserve as Americans to vote on such an important issue. It should not be dictated by any group. The final and highest authority that our government can give is to amend the constitution. If it is truly a vocal minority in our country that wants to protect traditional marriage then a vote would show that. However, if the opposite is true then that will be brought to light as well.
I appreciate the comments in your first 2 sentences - there is much to admire about the history and the heritage.
But just so that I understand ... is it your position that the constitution does not confer equal rights to gays and lesbians, or is it that there is no such thing as a right to marry (civil definition)?
The Oregon statutes apparently already define marriage as being between one man and one woman - why would they (no gay marriage proponents) want to change the constitution unless they felt there was some existing risk of those statutes being overturned on the basis of a constitutional challenge?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 367 |
opinion time
I beleive that no law (any law) establishes marriage. It only recognizes what was already there. In so recognizing what marriage is and the benifit to society most goverments support this institution and even bestow certain privelages to it. Historically these benifits and privelages were given in order to support families.
I also don't beleive that recongnition based on sexual preference is a civil right. If those proponets of same sex marriage actually do beleive it is then they might take an example from the real Civil Rights movement in how to change the country. Honestly I don't even think that marriage is a civil right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,785 |
What about the rights that Homosexuals have that Heterosexual don't have. Link Homosexuals can apply for this and Heterosexuals can't. Don't see how this is fair. My fiance and I have been living together for over 3 years now. We are getting married in May but we can't apply for this. She gets free insurance through her work and would be free for me also "if" we were married. I can't get free insurance but her coworkers can get free insurance for their Domestic/Life Partners. Not sure how this is fair. We are life partners just not married (yet) and not gay. I am for gay marriges (Don't really agree with their pratices, but they can do what they want). Our bond in May will be as strong whether there is or isn't gay marriges. You don't hear Homosexuals fighting for Heterosexuals to have this right.
Just a Plain SE.
AKA Big Country
I maybe path914's B**** now, but wait until he needs his clutch done. We will see WHO is WHO's B**** then!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,231
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,231 |
defile the sanctity of marriage? palease! Isnt the divorce rate like 50 percent of all marriages? I thought the nuptials read something like till death do us part? Seems to me an awful lot of people are defiling the sanctity of marriage when they divorce. All too often "xtains" bend the word of the bible to suit their own needs. Man if most xtains were as xtain as they say they are, the world would be a much more beautiful place. IMO gay couples should be able to have every right a straight couple have.
95 Merc Stique
Zetec 2.0 Auto
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Discrimination in any realm of American life is unacceptable.
I can't get into the 2nd grade at the elementary school down the street. I can't collect Social Security payments. I can't rent a car from Enterprise. I can't run for Senator. Sounds like age discrimination to me.
I can't get into Curves, a health club only for women. Birth control isn't covered by my insurance. Planned Parenthood doesn't give a [censored] about males. Sounds like sex discrimination to me.
I won't get into college if the university at which I'm applying needs to fill it's racial quotas, and there are black people less qualified than me that also want to get in. I don't get respect on the basketball court because of my color. Sounds like race discrimination to me.
Discrimination is acceptable if placed in proper context (I don't consider AA acceptable -- I'll leave it at that). Sometimes, it just makes sense. If you consider the preservation of the most basic and ancient human social construct to be discrimination, so be it. I don't. I consider it common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Davo:
I can't get into the 2nd grade at the elementary school down the street. I can't collect Social Security payments. I can't rent a car from Enterprise. I can't run for Senator. Sounds like age discrimination to me.
I can't get into Curves, a health club only for women. Birth control isn't covered by my insurance. Planned Parenthood doesn't give a [censored] about males. Sounds like sex discrimination to me.
I won't get into college if the university at which I'm applying needs to fill it's racial quotas, and there are black people less qualified than me that also want to get in. I don't get respect on the basketball court because of my color. Sounds like race discrimination to me.
Discrimination is acceptable if placed in proper context (I don't consider AA acceptable -- I'll leave it at that). Sometimes, it just makes sense. If you consider the preservation of the most basic and ancient human social construct to be discrimination, so be it. I don't. I consider it common sense.
You are right, context means a lot. In the case of many of the examples you have cited, you are dealing with private groups that do have a right to "refuse service to anyone".
However, to not allow homosexuals the privilege of putting on the old ball and chain, we as a society are relegating them to second hand citizen status.
People keep on telling me that marriage is traditionally only referring to a union between a man and a women. What does tradition have to do with it? Polygamy is an instution slightly less old than monogamous marriage (if the Bible is your only timeline) and I do not see the "traditionalists" crying to have it legally instated. In fact, most of them would be outraged if it returned to America in a legally acceptable form.
P.S. Race quotas suck and if you get no respect on the basketball court, try getting SKILLS first.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
