aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sure, you can choose to be celibate or even to have. heterosexual. sex but you can't choose. which sex you are actually attracted to. One cannot "will" their sexuality. I think we can agree and move on because this debate on "choice" leads many to jump to conclusions that stir up too many emotions. I will concede that one cannot "will" their sexuality but they definitely can "choose" how to control their sexuality. (please do not think this is me giving advice that someone should "control" themselves from their sexual preference, just stating that they do in fact make a decision to act) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I think civil unions are best way for everyone on both sides. I personally don't agree with the term same sex marriage but civil unions for same sex couples are fine. I honestly believe that if you start altering definitions to fit under the umbrella of "marriage" that it's not going to stop at same sex marriage. I think making a distinction with civil unions and marriage will help in preventing any wiggle room for any future advocacies for other types of alternitive lifestyles to argue for a "marriage". This is where I stand. Amendments to laws make us have to weigh out each situation as they appear. We can call it a LOVE union, union of LOVE, or we can just create a new term and use this term to amend our Constitution but I am not too crazy on just re defining the words written in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If judges continue to correctly weigh these measures against the Constitution, you will continue to lose. You cannot relegate a segment of the citizenry to 2nd class citizens. The U.S. is not a theocracy and the population is not required to live by the laws of your religion or any other. I am willing to stick my foot in the door to that one. Forget religion and throw all the books out the door. When words were organized into the constitution of the United States each word had a definition governing it. Can you please point me to what should be used in defining the words written in our original constitution? Can you explain better? I'm not trying to snipe, I honestly don't get your point. Exactly what words are you referring to? The words "marriage", "homosexuality", and "heterosexuality" (or any of their synonyms or derivatives) do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor do the words "God" or "sin", for that matter. What words in the document do you think are ambiguous, or may have changed in meaning/interpretation over time?What the 1st and 14th Amendment do make clear however (in language whose meaning hasn't changed since 1791 or 1868) is that government may not grant special freedoms to some persons, or restrict those freedoms for other persons, based on a religious test or one particular religion's definition of sin or morality. From a governmental standpoint, all persons are entitled to equal liberties and privileges in regard to marriage, regardless of gender or gender orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sure, you can choose to be celibate or even to have. heterosexual. sex but you can't choose. which sex you are actually attracted to. One cannot "will" their sexuality. I think we can agree and move on because this debate on "choice" leads many to jump to conclusions that stir up too many emotions. I will concede that one cannot "will" their sexuality but they definitely can "choose" how to control their sexuality. (please do not think this is me giving advice that someone should "control" themselves from their sexual preference, just stating that they do in fact make a decision to act) Of course. Just as heterosexuals have the choice - only without the additional religious baggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Glad that for once, my home state doesnt look like a bunch of neanderthals. I share your concern for the image/reputation of the state! I too am tired of Alabama coming off as "a bunch of neanderthals" or at least homo sapiens stuck in the 1800's.Unfortunately, in this case, it was a federal judge implying that we are near-neanderthals, or rather constitutional idiots, for thinking the Protection of Marriage Act or the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment would pass U.S. Constitutional muster. Alabama is not alone in its state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. California, Ohio, Oregon, Hawaii, Wyoming,Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, and many other states had banned it in their state constitutions. Only a couple of state legislatures approved it by statue. Anywhere there was a public vote to ban it, the ban passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Can you explain better? I'm not trying to snipe, I honestly don't get your point. Exactly what words are you referring to? The words "marriage", "homosexuality", and "heterosexuality" (or any of their synonyms or derivatives) do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor do the words "God" or "sin", for that matter. What words in the document do you think are ambiguous, or may have changed in meaning/interpretation over time? What the 1st and 14th Amendment do make clear however (in language whose meaning hasn't changed since 1791 or 1868) is that government may not grant special freedoms to some persons, or restrict those freedoms for other persons, based on a religious test or one particular religion's definition of sin or morality. From a governmental standpoint, all persons are entitled to equal liberties and privileges in regard to marriage, regardless of gender or gender orientation. I do not see you as sniping and hope that you can see past my inaptitude and lack of knowledge to express my misunderstanding of the other position. So how does the definition of a word effect any Amendment? Can me and my sister get married? Can me and my bowling league get married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Separation of marriage and state is the pie-in-the-sky best case scenario, but as long as that noble goal is apparently off the table, this is the best we can hope for. Churches should be able to choose whether they will perform same sex cermonies, and I'm sure this state's leaders will ensure that happens. Freedom of peaceful association and freedom to enter into legal contracts with others are Natural Rights- inherent in our humanity- and not up for a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 >>>>>>>>>>only without the additional religious baggage. LOL! That depends on who you ask. This "religious baggage" you speak of convicts me that if I lust for another women while "married" then I sin. Let's just say that I carry this baggage daily and don't have the will power to cut my eyes out. This alone is what keeps me in check from thinking that I am "holier" than any other person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sure, you can choose to be celibate or even to have. heterosexual. sex but you can't choose. which sex you are actually attracted to. One cannot "will" their sexuality. I think we can agree and move on because this debate on "choice" leads many to jump to conclusions that stir up too many emotions. I will concede that one cannot "will" their sexuality but they definitely can "choose" how to control their sexuality. (please do not think this is me giving advice that someone should "control" themselves from their sexual preference, just stating that they do in fact make a decision to act) If you mean that the debate over whether homosexuality is morally "right or wrong" is never-ending and highly charged emotionally, I agree with you. With 7+ billion people on this planet, there are probably 7+ billion subtly different viewpoints on morality.Arguing the morality of homosexuality, however, is not the same thing as arguing the constitutionality of it. The only significant argument against homosexuality is based on religious belief, and the Constitution forbids the government from taking religious sides or favoring one religious viewpoint. As for controlling one's sexual acts, I acknowledge that some are more capable of self-control than others. I think most of us agree (along with most sociological/scientific studies) that an unrestrained, unprotected lifestyle of promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. But I see no reason for me to demand greater abstinence from homosexuals than I ask of myself with my (potential) heterosexual partners. And there is certainly no constitutional basis for requiring greater sexual restraint on the part of homosexuals than from heterosexuals. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If you mean that the debate over whether homosexuality is morally "right or wrong" is never-ending and highly charged emotionally, I agree with you. With 7+ billion people on this planet, there are probably 7+ billion subtly different viewpoints on morality. Arguing the morality of homosexuality, however, is not the same thing as arguing the constitutionality of it. The only significant argument against homosexuality is based on religious belief, and the Constitution forbids the government from taking religious sides or favoring one religious viewpoint. As for controlling one's sexual acts, I acknowledge that some are more capable of self-control than others. I think most of us agree (along with most sociological/scientific studies) that an unrestrained, unprotected lifestyle of promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. But I see no reason for me to demand greater abstinence from homosexuals than I ask of myself with my (potential) heterosexual partners. And there is certainly no constitutional basis for requiring greater sexual restraint on the part of homosexuals than from heterosexuals. . Thank you for putting into words what I could not. I do not judge "morality" because I quite frankly would be horrible at it. I have personal LAWS that I have accepted which govern my personal "morality" and luckily they have kept me in line with the Laws of this land. (so far) I am not asking (and definitely not demanding) greater abstinence on anyone as long as they do not break the Laws in this country that have been accepted as just and moral. I really hope that my words are not giving the impression otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sure, you can choose to be celibate or even to have. heterosexual. sex but you can't choose. which sex you are actually attracted to. One cannot "will" their sexuality. I think we can agree and move on because this debate on "choice" leads many to jump to conclusions that stir up too many emotions. I will concede that one cannot "will" their sexuality but they definitely can "choose" how to control their sexuality. (please do not think this is me giving advice that someone should "control" themselves from their sexual preference, just stating that they do in fact make a decision to act) If you mean that the debate over whether homosexuality is morally "right or wrong" is never-ending and highly charged emotionally, I agree with you. With 7+ billion people on this planet, there are probably 7+ billion subtly different viewpoints on morality.Arguing the morality of homosexuality, however, is not the same thing as arguing the constitutionality of it. The only significant argument against homosexuality is based on religious belief, and the Constitution forbids the government from taking religious sides or favoring one religious viewpoint. As for controlling one's sexual acts, I acknowledge that some are more capable of self-control than others. I think most of us agree (along with most sociological/scientific studies) that an unrestrained, unprotected lifestyle of promiscuity is a dangerous lifestyle. But I see no reason for me to demand greater abstinence from homosexuals than I ask of myself with my (potential) heterosexual partners. And there is certainly no constitutional basis for requiring greater sexual restraint on the part of homosexuals than from heterosexuals. . Lets just open the can... Can I "marry" my 15 year old daughter? (I chose this example because I am not her sexual type in the first place... Ironic is it not?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Can you explain better? I'm not trying to snipe, I honestly don't get your point. Exactly what words are you referring to? The words "marriage", "homosexuality", and "heterosexuality" (or any of their synonyms or derivatives) do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Nor do the words "God" or "sin", for that matter. What words in the document do you think are ambiguous, or may have changed in meaning/interpretation over time? What the 1st and 14th Amendment do make clear however (in language whose meaning hasn't changed since 1791 or 1868) is that government may not grant special freedoms to some persons, or restrict those freedoms for other persons, based on a religious test or one particular religion's definition of sin or morality. From a governmental standpoint, all persons are entitled to equal liberties and privileges in regard to marriage, regardless of gender or gender orientation. I do not see you as sniping and hope that you can see past my inaptitude and lack of knowledge to express my misunderstanding of the other position. So how does the definition of a word effect any Amendment? Can me and my sister get married? Can me and my bowling league get married? Allow me to rephrase my question for clarity: Since the Constitution never addresses the topic of marriage, gender, or sexual orientation, I don't understand how word meanings in the Constitution relate to the topic of homosexual marriage? Now if you're simply discussing the evolution of language in general or specific words that do appear in the Constitution, I see that as a valid topic of interest or field of study (just not the topic of this thread). I actually find the etymology and evolution of words fascinating. ...just don't see how it's relevant to the thread topic on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Regarding your last two hypothetical cases: To be honest, as a law professor or judge, I'm not sure I could make a case for outlawing incest or multi-partner marriages based on the U.S. Constitution as long as all parties were consenting, equally empowered, mentally competent adults (thus quickly eliminating any arguments regarding pedophilia or bestiality). Of course, I'm not a lawyer or judge and do not have any formal education in law. Sure there are genetic risks involved in reproduction between closely related parents, and certainly all incest is a psychological minefield. But there are a great many other dangerous/unhealthy things that we do which the Constitution does not forbid, so I'm not sure there is a Constitutional basis for banning incest even if there are other good reasons for such. So is such a prohibition mostly religious/ethical in nature and like the definition of "sin", beyond the constitutional authority of the government? (Hopefully I don't have to state that I find incest vile and upsetting personally, but that's personal revulsion which is not the same as constitutional law.) I'm not really sure there's a constitutional case or authority for outlawing polygamy based on purely religious grounds, either. Now, the reality of both incest and polygamy in today's world is that they rarely occur in a setting of equal power and consent. Most reported cases of incest involve a dominant relative taking advantage of a subservient or under aged relative, and are therefore actually rape. Likewise, most polygamous groups still practicing on this planet, whether fundamentalist LDS sects, primitive tribal societies, or multiple wives under Islamic law, involve unequal relationships in which the woman has little or no power/voice. Historically, of course, many societies have practiced polygamy, including several heroes/patriarchs of the Old Testament. Within the royal families of the ancient Egyptians and Incas, incest was practically mandatory to preserve the "purity" of the royal bloodline. Through much of European history and even today, the legal age of consent and the legal limits of consanguinity vary from place to place (one can still marry one's first cousin in some places under certain conditions). So I suppose one could make a case that prohibitions against incest and/or polygamy are religious in nature, and therefore outside the domain of government authority. However, I think the government can insist that any such participants be mature enough to give consent, be mentally sound enough to give consent, and have equal power in expressing consent, based on its Constitutional duty to guarantee equal rights before the law to all persons involved. Well, I've enjoyed our talk...always nice to have a discussion free of emotional hysteria! But I feel a bed calling me. Goodnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I do not judge "morality" because I quite frankly would be horrible at it. I have personal LAWS that I have accepted which govern my personal "morality" and luckily they have kept me in line with the Laws of this land. (so far) One last thing before I close:I couldn't agree with you more on this! I have neither the wisdom nor the energy to judge others, and I sure as hell don't want the headache or responsibility! That, for sure, seems like a job for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being to me, and I most certainly do not have those credentials! ...much to my relief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Well, I've enjoyed our talk...always nice to have a discussion free of emotional hysteria! But I feel a bed calling me. Goodnight! Thank you and you have opened my eyes to a few new ways of my thinking into this. Thank you again for being patient and sharing your insight with me. For the record, bestiality has always been a mute argument for me because of consent. Plurality and defining an adult (which defines a pedophile) is the dark room that I question and explore but you gave great thoughts on both for me to think over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,431 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Oh Mike Hubbard, bless your heart ... Welcome to a Constitutionally based government Sir. It is the 21st Century. States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc. Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.In other words, deal with it. That gif is just wrong on so many levels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc. Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.In other words, deal with it. In an exact word NO. We will simply continue to elect those that will appoint non-lib. judges. (Witness the overwhelming victory in the last election)Problem solved. Move along...and have a good evening. Uh, she's a W appointee. I also mentioned John E. Jones III earlier, another W appointee who overturned the gay marriage law in Penn and presided over the Dover ID trial. They're conservatives. They're also sane, and thank goodness for it. I think he has a crazy idea that the tea party can win an election. Can you imagine? :rolleyes:/> I like the idea of a Tea Party movement. What I don't like is it's implementation. When the government is small, freedom is large Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 States need to change from using the term marriage to just call them civil unions. A lot of controversy is over the use of the word marriage which is really a scarement of churches. Everyone could get a civil union license honored by the state and courts. If you want a marriage, go find a church you prefer. Only the civil union would matter for taxes, benefits, next of kin, etc. Agree. The "issue" is "marriage". Civil Union is fine. GOD invented and established marriage. HIS rules. Not man. Any man. Marriage by DEFINITION is One Man/One Woman. JMHO OK. Good luck in trying to prevent them from getting married and using the term.In other words, deal with it. That gif is just wrong on so many levels... I thought it appropriate, given this thread's subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Oh Mike Hubbard, bless your heart ... Welcome to a Constitutionally based government Sir. It is the 21st Century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17-16 21 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 It seems to me that many years ago, lawmakers felt it destructive to our nation for men traveling place to place fathering children whom they will not support. Because gainful employment for women at this time was almost inexistent, single moms raising children proved to be a travesty these lawmakers felt should be addressed.( Every study I have ever known of shows children from a home where both parents (biological) are still married and love each other, out perform and are happier than children from any other demographic. These same families also need far less assistance from government programs such as welfare, which was not in existence then). These lawmakers recognized that men and women who had entered into Christian institutions known as marriage, and were faithful to it, were the kind of parents and citizens that would be good for the nation. So as a way to encourage this family structure, they passed laws to recognize these religious institutions and offer incentives to those who choose to live by them. America's recognition of marriage is an incentive not a civil right; an incentive any sovereign people should have the right to VOTE on. Who jumps into bed with who is an individual's choice and a protected right. If we, believe marriage between a man and a woman is healthy for our country/state, the voting public should have the right to offer incentives as they see fit and democratically implement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The amazing thing about Grace, is that all things are permissible,but not all things are profitable. I can cheat on my wife as many times as I want to. Under Grace, I can. Now, I will probably lose my family and be smeared in the public eye, but I can do that. It is also permissible for me under Grace, to do drugs and drink heavily. I will probably lose my job and maybe even my life, but I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says that I can't do something. A Christian that believes in Christ can be a homosexual. There is no rule that states otherwise with Grace, because we aren't under the law anymore. But again, not all things are profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Separation of marriage and state is the pie-in-the-sky best case scenario, but as long as that noble goal is apparently off the table, this is the best we can hope for. Churches should be able to choose whether they will perform same sex cermonies, and I'm sure this state's leaders will ensure that happens. Freedom of peaceful association and freedom to enter into legal contracts with others are Natural Rights- inherent in our humanity- and not up for a majority vote. I agree that protection of church's rights will be a priority of the leaders in this state, ...as it should be if such rights were indeed at risk!Fortunately the fact is, nobody on either side of the debate with any sense is suggesting churches should be forced to perform marriages outside of their teachings/beliefs. Would anyone suggest (or for that matter, would either religion recognize) such contradictions a Buddhist priest performing a Southern Baptist wedding, an Islamic Imam conducting Roman Catholic sacrament, or an Eastern Orthodox Father marrying a couple in the eyes of Vishnu? As I've mentioned on other threads in the past, my father was a United Methodist (UMC) minister. He practiced a policy which the Church recommended, but did not mandate, that pastors should not marry couples until they had participated in pre-marital counseling. There was never a legal concern regarding his or the UMC's refusal to marry a couple. Actually, there was never question of him being allowed to turn down a marriage request for any reason. Constitutionally, there was never and is not any question regarding clergy being forced to perform marriages against their will or against the teachings of their faith. And even the most rabid "bleeding heart, radical, pinko-commie, politically correct, 'gay-agenda' liberals" cannot make a valid case for the government telling religions how to practice or regulate their rituals. [excluding extremes like human sacrifice, of course ] Last year we did have the case in a wedding chapel (in Montana, Idaho, Dakota, IIRC?) of a minister wanting to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages at his establishment. However, that was not so much a question of his freedom of conscience in performing weddings, but the legal requirements of operating a for-profit business licensed by the city under the civil non-discrimination laws...which even the pastor agreed to follow when applying/signing for the licence. ---- Besides agreeing with you that "Churches should be able to choose whether they will perform same sex cer[e]monies", I also like your statement regarding rights "not up for a majority vote". Jefferson used the expression "inalienable" rights. The writers of the Constitution made sure that it would take at least 2/3rds of Congress (or a Convention) and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to change/limit someone's Constitutional rights. That's what irks me about Mike Hubbard's statement. So to Mike Hubbard I say: I don't care how many "millions" you may cite or claim you have on your side, Mike! A dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship. And whether you choose Jefferson's deist expression that we are "endowed by our Creator", a more atheistic variation that we are "innately born with", or just the simple truth that "this is how it is", no government/state has the right to restrict rights based on gender or gender orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If we believe marriage between a man and a woman is healthy for our country/state, the voting public should have the right to offer incentives as they see fit and democratically implement And if we [whatever you mean by "we"] believe marriages should be racially pure, the government should endorse that? If "we" think only men of substance/property should be legally entitlement to marry or vote, that's fine? If "we" believe it benefits our country/state to allow one person to own another person, we should offer incentives for that?I'm pretty sure when the Declaration of Independence spoke of "inalienable" rights, it wasn't talking about what the "voting public" decided was healthy or wished to reward. [bTW, I'm not quoting the Declaration as a legally-binding document, but as a statement of principle.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 As I understand all this, ONE District judge made this ruling. The state will appeal al it's far from over it would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 As I understand all this, ONE District judge made this ruling. The state will appeal al it's far from over it would appear. Probably won't matter. The SCOTUS is set to rule on gay marriage this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Exactly so why didn' the judge in this case just defer a ruling and not stir up a big fuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.