Our Founding Fathers on Christianity

The term "gay marriage" is self contradictory. By definition marriage is between a man and woman. I see nothing wrong in gays having some sort of legal or religious contract that would give them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, you just can't call it marriage. Once you start down the road of newspeak then words lose their meaning including our Constitution which has been twisted enough already.

Richard

franco b wrote:The term "gay marriage" is self contradictory. By definition marriage is between a man and woman. I see nothing wrong in gays having some sort of legal or religious contract that would give them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, you just can't call it marriage. Once you start down the road of newspeak then words lose their meaning including our Constitution which has been twisted enough already.

Richard

The church they belong to can call it whatever their church wants to call it. That is freedom of religion.

franco b wrote:The term "gay marriage" is self contradictory. By definition marriage is between a man and woman. I see nothing wrong in gays having some sort of legal or religious contract that would give them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, you just can't call it marriage. Once you start down the road of newspeak then words lose their meaning including our Constitution which has been twisted enough already.

Richard

That is A definition of the word.

I can marry pieces of metal, or rope, or liquids, etc....

At it's simplest, it means taking multiple objects and making them one.

And I see no reason why that can't apply to two men or two women.

Honestly, I never understood the "it degrades traditional marriage" argument. I think a 50% divorce rate degrades traditional marriage.

Allow gay marriage, make divorce illegal. You'd be damn sure that two people who got married knew they wanted to be together until "death do they part."

When I was working, my supervisor who had been married and divorced three times. The lady he next lived with was married and divorced twice. They eventually got married and about three years later got divorced.

If those two people don't make a "mockery" of marriage I don't see how two men or two women getting married will be any different.

jpete wrote:

franco b wrote:The term "gay marriage" is self contradictory. By definition marriage is between a man and woman. I see nothing wrong in gays having some sort of legal or religious contract that would give them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, you just can't call it marriage. Once you start down the road of newspeak then words lose their meaning including our Constitution which has been twisted enough already.

Richard

That is A definition of the word.

I can marry pieces of metal, or rope, or liquids, etc....

At it's simplest, it means taking multiple objects and making them one.

And I see no reason why that can't apply to two men or two women.

Honestly, I never understood the "it degrades traditional marriage" argument. I think a 50% divorce rate degrades traditional marriage.

Allow gay marriage, make divorce illegal. You'd be damn sure that two people who got married knew they wanted to be together until "death do they part."

We are talking about a sacrament not a colloquialism.

Richard

franco b wrote:
We are talking about a sacrament not a colloquialism.

Richard

Different faiths have different sacraments. You don't get to have input on the sacraments of other faiths.

If gay marriage is a sacrament of reformed Jews then a law banning gay marriage is a clear violation of the first amendment.

Government is supposed to be a secular organization. You don't really want to invite the government in to tell you which sacraments you can and can't have do you?

ErikLaurence wrote:So you are against Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

You're leaving up to the states so the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.) means that if a gay couple marries in one state then the other 49 states must recognize the marriage.

Terrific, we agree.

Thanks for actually reading my post, Erik.

Yes, that's right Erik, the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. It is a state's rights issue. The point is moot. But it is so because of cultural shifts. Morality has changed.

The problem is that you don't respect the Constitution which is evident from your fervent desire to equivocate in any manner necessary to achieve your ends. You demonstrated in this conversation that you would rip the Constitution apart in order to prove your point and get your way. You would argue that religious behavior is personal but then insist that the umbrella of religion protect any social behavior as sacrosanct thus ignoring culture.

You ignored the context of the document and the Founder's intent. You chose a clever and technical way to destroy its meaning. Similarly, the left has not a shred of respect for the Constitution. If they did, they would have the courage to change the Constitution to adapt to their new cultural morality (as your ancestors did) through a public debate rather than use the media to brainwash the people.

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:So you are against Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

You're leaving up to the states so the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.) means that if a gay couple marries in one state then the other 49 states must recognize the marriage.

Terrific, we agree.

Thanks for actually reading my post, Erik.

Yes, that's right Erik, the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. It is a state's rights issue. The point is moot. But it is so because of cultural shifts. Morality has changed.

And you're cool with the full faith and credit clause? So in your opinion DOMA is obviously unconstitutional?

mikeandgerry wrote:The problem is that you don't respect the Constitution which is evident from your fervent desire to equivocate in any manner necessary to achieve your ends. You demonstrated in this conversation that you would rip the Constitution apart in order to prove your point and get your way. You would argue that religious behavior is personal but then insist that the umbrella of religion protect any social behavior as sacrosanct thus ignoring culture.

You ignored the context of the document and the Founder's intent. You chose a clever and technical way to destroy its meaning. Similarly, the left has not a shred of respect for the Constitution. If they did, they would have the courage to change the Consitution through a public debate rather than use the media to brainwash the people.

Let's try to argue facts here and avoid the personal attack. Let's not make sweeping statements that are not supported by the evidence in the thread.

The fact is that the intent of the constitution is to limit the rights of government, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about protecting your culture, or your traditions, or your dogma. It exists solely to limit the powers of government. The right and the left are both trying to use the constitution to limit the rights of citizens.

I am not attacking you. I am telling you how you are wrong.

The actions of the left do not go unnoticed by those who respect law and traditional cultural morality. Soon another culture, one that understands the benefit of a strong, moralistic and procreative society, will use your own reasoning against you in your own land. And no, I don't mean Christians or Deists.

mikeandgerry wrote:I am not attacking you. I am telling you how you are wrong.

Show me where I did this?

...in this conversation that you would rip the Constitution apart in order to prove your point and get your way. You would argue that religious behavior is personal but then insist that the umbrella of religion protect any social behavior as sacrosanct thus ignoring culture.

The Constitution does not exist to protect "culture".

I think the DOMA is probably unconstitutional as it oversteps federal authority.

However, states are withing their rights to declare homosexuality a crime. State "Blue laws" for the most part were not and are not unconstitutional if they dealt with certain behaviors that violated community standard.

mikeandgerry wrote:The actions of the left do not go unnoticed by those who respect law and traditional cultural morality. Soon another culture, one that understands the benefit of a strong, moralistic and procreative society, will use your own reasoning against you in your own land. And no, I don't mean Christians or Deists.

That was the excuse of the Taliban.

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:I am not attacking you. I am telling you how you are wrong.

Show me where I did this?

...in this conversation that you would rip the Constitution apart in order to prove your point and get your way. You would argue that religious behavior is personal but then insist that the umbrella of religion protect any social behavior as sacrosanct thus ignoring culture.

The Constitution does not exist to protect "culture".

I already told you that you used the umbrella of religion to hide desired "new" social behaviors as sacrements of that religion. It has been tried and rejected by the courts such as tax avoidance and marijuana smoking, now homosexual marriage.

Your entire argument is silly because the Constitution protects marriage civilly within the state's rights.

How many times do I have to explain this to you?