Marriage Amendment

godsmac says:

quote:

---

Catholicism is the faith, doctrine, system, and practice of a Catholic church. Catholic pertains to the universal Church, or body of Christians.

---

Go get an encyclopedia. Look up Martin Luther. Read what it says.

quote:

---

Government is the act of governing. The people or institutions that govern may change over time, but that does not change the meaning of the word 'government.

---

No, the institution of government itself changed drastically in the 18th century, arguably more so than the institution of marriage would be changed by allowing gays to participate in it. Before you put up that encyclopedia, look up American Revolution. See if you can find what I'm talking about.My point, since you seem to require that it be spelled out in no uncertain terms, is that the institutions of government and Christianity have changed drastically over the centuries. If you still don't know what I'm talking about, maybe you should seriously consider opening a book one day.

I said: And you said: We were both right. If you believe in his teachings then you believe he is the Messiah.You said: There is a looser connotation of the word marriage which applies to union of abstract principles, which is included in most dictionaries. But the connotation central to this topic is the spousal connotation, which has always been a man and woman. And in the case of the Roman Catholic church and the ideally celibate nature of its priests, the church takes the place of any potential bride in the priest's heart and mind--it's figurative, not literal.I put the emphasis on Roman Catholic because that is not synonymous with the plain word catholic. Many Protestants believe in a holy catholic church, but that does not mean the Roman Catholic church. But I guess I'm just mincing words.

We might just win this culture war after all. Get a load of this.EDIT: Just a note to say that I only now noticed that this happened Saturday morning. I suppose I missed it because I had gone to Jackson (I've moved to Vicksburg since my profile was created here, sooner or later I'll get around to changing it) and didn't check the news until a few minutes ago. Still, this doesn't seem to have been posted here yet.[This message has been edited by berberry, 02-29-2004]

The legal practices of the United States are, to my mind, what is being discussed, but if you want to talk about definitions:A universal definition of marriage will be inclusive with the definition from all cultures... including some that allow gay marriage and some that allow many marriages for one person but not for others. There are some cultures that allow one woman to be married to many men. And vice versa.So what is the universal definition that is followed by all cultures?

Not sure if you saw my links on this subject in the other gay marriage thread. Obviously there is no universal definition of marriage. However...1) Throughout history and cultures marriage has always included uniting a man and a woman (which should not be surprising as it originated regarding relationships that produce offspring)...2) Throughout all of history and MOST nations, marriage has included polygamy (in a recent study 850 of the ~1200 nations have polygamy)...3) Within the US, polygamy did exist for a short time before being crushed ala the same techniques we are seeing today against gays, and for a long time they have been trying to regain legitimacy using the same techniques we are seeing today in SF for gays (they just don't get the same positive press)...4) Throughout almost all of history and all nations, marriage has NOT included same sex unions. There were a few cultures which included such things, especially in the ancient world but they were more or less temporary unions that would end when a man came of age and took a wife...5) Only within the last 10 years have any nations, or states, adopted same sex unions along the line of permanent samesex unions into the legal concept of marriage.Now I am not arguing that traditions of any kind should be "protected" by the Constitution (through amendments), or the Congress (through laws). I believe that people should have the freedom to start new traditions and expand rights.I am also uncertain how changing this definition can possibly be argued to harm anyone much less our culture.I just don't think it's useful when people deny the actual history/practice of marriage in discussing the topic. It ends up seeming disengenuous.The greater questions are, okay so what? Why can't marriage include same sex couples now?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I do understand your point. However my point, since you seem to require that it be spelled out in no uncertain terms, is that the institutions of government can change (whether drastically or not) without changing what government is -- the act of governing. Likewise for the Christian religion -- its institutions can change without changing what it is, the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Doc,Already discussed the singular nature of marriage with the possibility of one person involved in multiple marriages in Message 85.What culture or cultures have allowed gay marriages before the present day? This is important to determining the universal definition of marriage. Without evidence to the contrary, I hold that marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman.

godsmac writes:

quote:

---

However my point, since you seem to require that it be spelled out in no uncertain terms, is that the institutions of government can change (whether drastically or not) without changing what government is -- the act of governing.

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. The institutions of government and the Christian church have undergone radical changes in the past, yet they survive. They're still here, even though they are not at all the same things they once were.You seem to miss the connection to marriage. The institution is undergoing a radical change. The institution of marriage will survive, but it will not be the same thing it once was. I suppose you would say that's a bad thing, which indeed you're free to do, but you're going to have to come up with something a little stronger than the ad hominem "it's always been this way" if you want to convince anyone who isn't convinced already.

godsmac tells docpotato:

quote:

---

What culture or cultures have allowed gay marriages before the present day?

---

You still don't get it. This argument doesn't matter. It's ad hominem. It's just another way of saying "it's always been this way". Do you really think this sort of "logic" is going to stand up in the US Supreme Court?

I don't know, define present day? After all Canada legalized gay marriage before today. So there is a cultural precedent.Why did we abolish slavery? That was always done up until its present day.Why did we allow women to vote?

Crash,If we suppose that the God self-described in the Bible is really out there, He/She, especially the She part, is very dangerous. I won't go into detail, but suffice it to say that if in a democracy, the majority allow some behavior that really pisses off this God, He/She comes down and messes up the whole damn nation big time.Adultery, homosexuality, and using fiat money are noted in print as being "I really hate it when any of you do that!" sorts of things. Not tempted, of course. It's actually counted as an honor to have homosexual inclinations, or adulterous ones, but to not indulge. But, when the nation as a whole says, "Yeah, cool, go for it. God bless." that's when the wrath begins.Now, the wrath of God has historically been manifested in some interesting ways: floods, raining brimstone, overrun by foreign armies. There's a web-site (truth.com ?) claiming that God's anger with us over our lack of support of the Israelis is still manifested in these classical modes. But the modern, last day's style wrath is more subtle. Delusion. Everyone believes the lie."Believe the lie, and then you die, in shame, a fool, taken in. To writhe in Hell, a tur'ble spell, 'cause you were smart, din't believe in sin."God doesn't lie, but He knows how to tell the truth so that you get the wrong idea. This He calls delusion, and He dumps it on peoples who piss Him off with bad behavior. No, with behavior He calls bad, but they call good.So, you can see why fundies are off-put by sanctioning homosexuals in marriage. They see this as asking for more 9-11's or worse, all at the hand of God. Besides, they think, "Why should we sanction those homo's, who rarely come to church, appear to have plenty of money to travel whereever to get married, but don't put any in the collection plate! While nobody is sanctioning my practicing of adultery!" Guilt. What a motivator.But, there it is. The news magazines and papers are full of prayer studies and bible codes, so God's letting everyone know that He/She is out there, and you better watch out. Read Proverbs chapter two, where the feminine side of God lets lose on what she plans to do to anyone refusing to choose the fear of the Lord! Big time scary, if you let yourself believe in this sort of thing. Which most Americans do.Does that answer your question? Let me know quick, I'm looking for a safe place to move to.Stephen

Stephen,Move to a country like Saudi Arabia, where civil rights for the vast majority are completely subordinated to the whims of the few who presume to speak with and for God. The rest of us, who prefer to live in a country where the same rights are supposed to be enjoyed by all adult citizens, will promise to miss you.regards,
Esteban "Love it or Leave it" Hambre

quote:

---

Except that it has always been about a man and a woman before. Refute that.

---

You get a big fat "not listening" shenanigans called on you.

quote:

---

Marriage's attributes and methods may change, true. But the object has remained the same.

---

Oh, so what you're looking for in a wife is to purchase a twelve year old girl, in order to squeeze out more kids to work on the farm?

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Holmes,Thanks for the info. When looking over my posts, I see that I do seem a bit disingenuous. I don't think as hard as I should before posting.My feeling on the matter is that if people want to say "there's no history" in relation to gay marriage, then I can say, how much history do you need? Is ten days enough? 1 year?I did not express this clearly. And I completely agree with: "So what?"

While I'm sure that they recognized the wisdom of the "Judeo-Christian" code of ethics, it's pretty clear from their writings - and the Constitution itself - that they saw that there was nothing uniquely great about that specific code of ethics - that many culture's ethics share a lot of the same points. That was what they based the Constitution on - not specifically Christian ideas, but the ideas that have worked for centuries across many cultures. Perhaps too high a regard, hence the language of the First Amendment. I didn't realize that you meant that the 10 Commandments influenced American law as a negative example... I agree that risks need to be presented, but they shouldn't be blown out of proportion. For instance, the risks of abortion to the mother should be presented - but it should be noted that the risks (especially for early-term abortions) are a lot lower than actually carrying a baby to term, especially for a young mother.And it's important to point out that any risks you think are associated with the "gay lifestyle" are simply the risks associated with any kind of sex - disease, etc. And like heterosex, homosex's risks can be safely managed with forethought and planning. All of the things you're thinking of, I bet, are just stereotypes. Like participation in orgies. Or unsafe anal sex. Or cross-dressing. Unless you think there's something dangerous about dressing well and having good taste? To tell you the truth I think most of the things you're thinking of are more common among straight people than gay people.Gay people aren't sexual libertines with multiple anonymous partners, any more than straight people are. Like straight people, most of them have really vanilla, plain-jane sex lives.