• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
This is ridiculous. The Bible classifies marriage as between one man and one woman and I think that most of us will agree that that is the only holy book that matters in this country as far as making state policy is concerned.
As the politicians place their hand on the Constitution and take their oath I often wondered which 'bible' they swore to uphold... At times I thought it was the Torah and other times some one of Peter Drucker's works but it seems most often it is the script to Star Wars.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,456
1,457
126
Atheist!
You forget the atheist.
Exactly which bible do they place their hand on?
None...?
Well then, how are the atheist legally married under your standards? Bible standards?
Fail....? Yes fail.
Marriage IS NOT mandated that it be based on religion. Period!
And marriage itself has been "tweaked" often to correct the flaws.
That umbrella of marriage has been expanded many times.
Mixing marriage with religion is like mixing oil and water.
They don't mix.
You can inject religion into your personal ceremony, you can purge religion from your ceremony. It is up to the two getting married. And only those two.
No law, no government mandate requires that marriage and religion co exist.
Ask any legally married atheist couple. Duh!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
As the politicians place their hand on the Constitution and take their oath I often wondered which 'bible' they swore to uphold... At times I thought it was the Torah and other times some one of Peter Drucker's works but it seems most often it is the script to Star Wars.
:D I prefer the Rifleman's Bible myself. It's pretty straightforward, with few contradictions, and it has helpful charts. I solemnly swear to drop 2.3" at 200 yards . . .
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
My mothers raised two sons. So you think they should be allowed to marry, correct? Granted, it's too late since one of them has passed away, but you'd agree that since they fulfilled the "raise a family" criterion, they should have been allowed to marry, yes?
So if a brother and a sister raise 2 children together should they be able to get married?

Regulating the creation of children, which for most of history means sexual activity, is really just as important as the raising of the created children. It is also a means to ensure a child has a father. Because before the advent of DNA test 30-40 years ago if a man was not married he could say not mine.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
America is a Judeo-Christian nation only insofar as a great majority of its founders and present citizens have and value Judeo-Christian traditions and values. Our Founding Fathers, having seen firsthand the dangers of state-sponsored religion, wisely made us a nation with freedom of religion. Therefore the Bible is important in making state policy only as its values are reflected in our present-day citizens. As those Judeo-Christian values are presently evolving to be more tolerant of homosexuality, so too will we make state policy that is more tolerant of homosexuality.

Beyond that, America is also founded on the ideals of classical liberalism, that all men are created equal and should have equal treatment under the law. Our Founding Fathers intentionally founded a nation under which each person is ideally accorded the same respect and protection under the law, regardless of how well or how poorly he adheres to the Bible. To the extent that our laws fail to adhere to this ideal, they should be changed, even where that conflicts with the Bible. You have the right to worship G-d as you best see fit; you should not have the right to impose your understanding of G-d's will on others.
Exactly this. It seems like some people need a history lesson about the founding of the country and why exactly the first amendment starts off "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
So if a brother and a sister raise 2 children together should they be able to get married?
I honestly don't have a problem with marriage rights being conferred on siblings or other family members. But there are issues with incestuous marriages that stem from any offspring produced in those relationships, specifically a higher percentage being born with birth defects owing to the lack of diversity in the gene pool. You don't have those issues with children of gay and lesbian couples, whether they have children through artificial insemination or adoption. So it's really completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to start a thread about incest or polygamy or bestiality, I'd be happy to respond to any of those common strawmen arguments in an appropriate place; but I'm not getting drawn into that discussion in a place where it doesn't logically fit.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
:D I prefer the Rifleman's Bible myself. It's pretty straightforward, with few contradictions, and it has helpful charts. I solemnly swear to drop 2.3" at 200 yards . . .
Hehehehe, Right! :D

Drucker has an assassin theory in one of his books so I assume he's well versed on Ballistics... and ladders... and the important aspects of Congressional/Judicial imperatives... While the Executive simply accepts that 'IF the President does it it must be right... and lawful'.():)
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
This is ridiculous. The Bible classifies marriage as between one man and one woman and I think that most of us will agree that that is the only holy book that matters in this country as far as making state policy is concerned.
Yes, of course. No explicit polygamy in the Bible at all.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So if a brother and a sister raise 2 children together should they be able to get married?

Regulating the creation of children, which for most of history means sexual activity, is really just as important as the raising of the created children. It is also a means to ensure a child has a father. Because before the advent of DNA test 30-40 years ago if a man was not married he could say not mine.
DNA testing came about in the mid 80s but really began in the 90s for practical useage...

Before that was the blood method. IF both parents were O+ and the kid was AB- one would look at that logic and deduce the 'Mailman' effect.... IF they felt the need... Only when the parents COULD have produced the blood type of the Child would they look deeper, IF there was a claim as you suggest.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So if a brother and a sister raise 2 children together should they be able to get married?
I don't think there is a provision to allow that... but the greater question of 'should they be able' to notwithstanding the law is interesting...

I think it is all about the kids primarily... So, I'd probably say Yes... regardless of the law designed to keep the sibs from having kids... once they do a new set of circumstances appears... It seems to me that Kids have a Right to have Parents and they do either way... the question to my mind is: Do the kids benefit from their Parents being married?... I think they do... so as I said... Yes! As do the parents being in love and all that...
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Probably to the degree that those institutions promote traditional Christian values. Change is in the air though, as more mainstream type gays come out. We see that in the South, where prejudice against blacks lingers far longer than government-backed discrimination. To a degree it's a protective stratagem; if blacks are not racially inferior, then we (our ancestral families at least) did a horrendous thing keeping them in slavery. Ergo, blacks must be racially inferior to prevent us from being descended of monsters. It also gives whites with little going for them someone over whom they can feel superior without having to actually do anything. I think there's a degree of that in homophobia, a desire to both feel superior and to deny having done wrong in the past. There is also the evolution of our government; we are increasingly comfortable on both sides of the aisle with using government to force others to behave as we wish. Or perhaps I have that backward; our government has always been used to enforce a certain uniformity of behavior and we're only expanding its power and reach. Regardless, that only works as long as the discriminated class remains identifiably other. Once one becomes friends or at least acquainted with blacks or with homosexuals and realizes they aren't materially different from the rest of us, such defenses must come crashing down. And to take a Moonbeamish angle, denying that a great evil has been done to one's benefit doesn't make it go away; on the contrary, it binds the evil to us. As long as we maintain that blacks or homosexuals are other and should rightfully bear discrimination for the benefit of ourselves, we willingly embrace that stain on our souls.

I don't totally discount the Christian angle, but it's worth pointing out that such prohibitions are fairly universal, certainly expanding beyond Christianity. It's also worth pointing out that homosexuality is not one of the things on which Christ preached. (I won't presume to guess which sins are important and which are not, but it's always worth noting that modern populations, medicine, and hygiene have rendered moot prohibitions against homosexuality as a matter of population health, much as most of us no longer observe prohibitions against eating pork or shellfish.) I think to the degree that opposition to gay marriage is centered around religion institutions, it's in those institutions's role as the preservers and champions of tradition. And I recognize the value of that tradition, I just don't believe in constraining the freedom of others to keep that tradition. On the contrary, allowing gays into the tradition of marriage will strengthen it, just as accepting that blacks too are created equal and entitled to the same rights as whites enhanced America's other traditions.

All that is to say that I can respect opponents of gay marriage, I simply believe they are wrong. Tradition should not trump freedom and personal liberty, nor should the two even be at odds. Tradition always evolves and as long as the rate of changes are within the society's ability to accept, the evolved tradition should be stronger rather than weaker. And to those with remaining religious rejection, I'd simply ask that you value Jesus' teachings above Paul's or the Old Testament's.
Bold 1: I view it as the latter and with a wary eye as to potentially which behavior is enforced.

Bold 2: Oops. I can too easily fall into the trap of blaming Christianity and not other religions, in my frame of reference it's the one with which I'm most familiar. Most (all?) religions have prohibitions against homosexuality: maybe as part of their inception it was simply their reactions to other cultures where homosexuality was not prohibited (Greece, Sparta, etc.)
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Bold 2: Oops. I can too easily fall into the trap of blaming Christianity and not other religions, in my frame of reference it's the one with which I'm most familiar. Most (all?) religions have prohibitions against homosexuality: maybe as part of their inception it was simply their reactions to other cultures where homosexuality was not prohibited (Greece, Sparta, etc.)
Not correct. Japan is an obvious counter example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Japan
Homosexuality is legal in Japan. There are currently no laws against homosexuality, but there is no legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Japanese culture and the major religions in Japan do not have a history of hostility towards LGBT individuals.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY