The point was that a majority of people were against it (just like gay marriage), laws were passed against it (just like gay marriage), they wanted to pass more laws (just like gay marriage), people fought it (just like gay marriage), and today, it's widely socially accepted. The same thing will happen with gay marriage. If you think the young adults / kids of today, when they're running the country, are going to see anything wrong with gay marriage you need a reality check. That's why the so-called "conservatives" are pushing so hard for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They're afraid the courts will find that gay marriage is Constitutional, so if they change the Constitution, they won't have to worry about that anymore. Hmm..
If one considers two consenting adults being in love with eachother filthy and disgusting.
Its just the racists of the 21st century. In 50 years they'll be seen as the bigots they are. Every generation has them.
Indeed. Laws preventing gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and statutory rape (and even the old interracial marriage) are based only on what people deem socially acceptable. The equal protection clause can really be used in arguments for all of the above; what prevents us from allowing them all is that we do not think statutory rape and incest are socially acceptable behaviors, while today we realize that interracial marriage and possibly gay marriage are socially acceptable.
"Activist" judges (can someone give me a non idiotic term for them?) work to change not only what is the law, but also indirectly work to change what is socially acceptable in the long term. I think the psychology of this situation is really interesting. Will people fifty years from now find gay marriage to be socially acceptable? Or will the fundamentally Christian values of our country prevail in determining that gay marriage is socially unacceptable?
I don't know too much about the interracial marriage issue back then, but the fundamental difference between that issue and the gay issue IMHO is the presence of Christianity in the argument. It seems to me that the thing opposing interracial marriage was more indoctrinated social practice sanctioned only by traditions (parents influence on child), while in the case of gay marriage the anti-gays have a powerful tool in the use of Christianity. The Bible, and all the weight that it carries, can be used against changing the status quo of acceptable behavior, unlike with interracial marriage.
Therefore, I don't think it's going to be as simple as people suddenly accepting gay marriage as they accepted interracial marriage. With Christianity at hand, changing the social norms has an extremely powerful opponent.
(But I'm hoping for a 'gay' victory)
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
not really, there was a religious component to racism in our history. the south was deeply religious after all, and they had slavery. just like today, they considered the north godless
all the colored races were considered inferior because they were the decedents of cain who was cursed by god for his act of murder. just like now, they tried to amend the constitution with their bigotry.Protestant denominations once interpreted the Bible as implying that the black race was formed from Cain and Abel's descendents. The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice. The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress among Christians because they had to reject slavery as profoundly immoral -- a practice which the bible accepted. Beliefs of the ancestry of blacks died a natural death among the leading denominations: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. But the LDS church was an exception. The Pearl of Great Price is one of four source texts that are accepted by Mormons as divinely inspired and authoritative scripture --the "Standard Works." The Pearl had specifically prohibited the ordination of anyone who was black or who had even one distant black ancestor. Its teachings could not be easily altered. Another inspired scripture is the Book of Mormon
In 2 Nephi 5:21-23, it discusses the Lamanite race, and how they received dark skins and a degenerate status:
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
.http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm etc etc
What the Holy Bible Says About Race Mixing
Liberal ministers have a very difficult time reconciling the holy bible with their crusade to promote interracial marriage. Quite frankly, the Bible demands Segregation of the races. Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man and hath determined the bounds of their habitation. Genesis 28:1 says that the Canaanites (blacks) were the servants of servants and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, ?thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan.? Jeremiah 13:23 stresses the fact that we cannot make white people out of Negroes in these words: ?can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?? This could be interpreted as a warning that Negroes breed whites down to mongrels but that we could never breed them up into Whites.http://www.k-k-k.com/story.html yes its the kkk now, but back then it was a tad more mainstream
I don't believe you know how the seperation of powers is supposed to work. The legislative branch is NOT given absolute power, they have limits on what they can do based on powers given to the executive and judicial branches. In this case, the judicial branch is interpreting the law to say that equal protection means you can't give rights to straight couples and not gay couples.
It seems obvious that you are against this, so let's look at the alternative. Since the whole idea of equal protections is not spelled out when it comes to gay marriage, how does it apply? For that matter, unless every specific instance is spelled out in the law, how does the judicial branch make any decisions? Obviously there are shades of grey here, but other than the fact that you are anti-gay marriage, what exactly makes what the judge did over the line? And DON'T just say "legislating from the bench", I'm well aware that's what you think happened...WHY do you think that?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Now an interesting question.
Will gays and the courts try to force churches to perform gay marriages?
Will gays and the courts try to force churches to perform gay marriages?
How is it a religious matter and not a government matter?
Does the government recognize the union of a man and a woman under religious doctrine
to be a marriage? (Yes)
Does the government also perform marriages for a man and a woman? (Yes)
(If you say No, then all the people married by Judges and Captians of ships are not really
married in your opinion then, but hey are recognized by the government.)
Some will say that government accepts the marriages of people under religious context
in order to support the family unit, which helps to make the country stronger and provides
for "good" environments for the children produced in traditional marriages.
So the government decided to accept marriages, then believed it had the right to be an
issuer of marriages for those who could not be married under religious contexts.
Why does marriage have to be solely for the sake of religious context?
Do men and women get married outside of religion?
Are these marriages legal?
If 2 people love each other and want to live together for the rest of thier lives, why should
anyone have the right to say they should not be together? (I am already taking into
account the fact that the people should be of sufficient intellectual development and
physical maturity to understand the ramifications of what they are getting into, i.e. of Legal Age).
Some will obviously post that there are many who do not realize what they are getting
into and end up in divorce. That is true. So do we expect homosexual marriage will fair
any better than heterosexual. I think not. But that is not the point. You are denying
even a brief moment of happiness then you are denying one of the fundmental tenants
of the Declaration of Independence. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed")
I personally do not think highly of homosexual marriage, but that is my opinion. I do
believe that homosexuals can be in love and have just as much meaning as love for
heterosexuals. Why should it be denied, because other people are afraid. If
homosexuality becomes too prevalent " I might catch it". What a bunch of hogwash.
I am personally against adoption by homosexuals. I do believe that a child needs a full
time mother and father. I do not fear that a child will become homosexual though
because of being brought up in this environment, unless the parents are "training the child
to be a homosexual". The same could be said of heterosexual parents who train their
children to be of a certain behavorial pattern. So the argument goes both ways.
I just believe a child needs the support of the 2 sexes. This has been my ten cents worth.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not really, there was a religious component to racism in our history. the south was deeply religious after all, and they had slavery. just like today, they considered the north godless
Protestant denominations once interpreted the Bible as implying that the black race was formed from Cain and Abel's descendents. The Curse of Ham was used extensively prior to the Civil War to justify slavery as a biblically condoned, recognized and regulated practice. The abolition movement caused a great deal of distress among Christians because they had to reject slavery as profoundly immoral -- a practice which the bible accepted. Beliefs of the ancestry of blacks died a natural death among the leading denominations: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. But the LDS church was an exception. The Pearl of Great Price is one of four source texts that are accepted by Mormons as divinely inspired and authoritative scripture --the "Standard Works." The Pearl had specifically prohibited the ordination of anyone who was black or who had even one distant black ancestor. Its teachings could not be easily altered. Another inspired scripture is the Book of Mormon
In 2 Nephi 5:21-23, it discusses the Lamanite race, and how they received dark skins and a degenerate status:
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
.http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm etc etc
What the Holy Bible Says About Race Mixing
Liberal ministers have a very difficult time reconciling the holy bible with their crusade to promote interracial marriage. Quite frankly, the Bible demands Segregation of the races. Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man and hath determined the bounds of their habitation. Genesis 28:1 says that the Canaanites (blacks) were the servants of servants and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, ?thou shalt not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan.? Jeremiah 13:23 stresses the fact that we cannot make white people out of Negroes in these words: ?can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?? This could be interpreted as a warning that Negroes breed whites down to mongrels but that we could never breed them up into Whites.http://www.k-k-k.com/story.html yes its the kkk now, but back then it was a tad more mainstream
In the old testament Jews were not barred from marrying Canaanites because they were black. Jews were barred from marrying all other folks because they worshipped pagan gods. Moses was married to an Ethopian woman. All through Leviticus, the book of the law, you'll see many references the "stranger". These are people who decided live like Jews and serve the God of Isarel. Another thing Jews are not white Anglo saxon folks like you and your kind.
No. Lesbian and gay people are seeking access to civil marriage, not religious marriage. Civil marriage is a function of the government (whereas religious marriages are performed by private organisations or businesses). Private businesses, organisations are able to discriminate against gay people in most states in the US. However government is required to treat citizens equally before the law. So government can't offer up all these legal protections associated with marriage to one group of people, but deny them to others. There is no such requirement for treating groups equally for churches, because they are not part of government, they are private organisations or businesses, and hence are free to discriminate against gay people if they wish to do so. (A small number of states take sexual orientation into account in their antidiscrimination legislation, there are always exemptions for churches and religious organisations.)
FWIW some churches do perform committment ceremonies and marriages for same-sex couples. These unions have no legal standing as far as the government is concerned.
Speaking of ruling from the Bench.
This will force the USSC to Officially put in writing that the U.S. discriminates. :thumbsup:
Although I have nothing against gay marriage, how can it be legalized when sodomy isn't?
I mean, how else can two gay couples consummate their marriage? Or is that like a white elephant where everyone knows but no one wants to bring it up?
I mean, how else can two gay couples consummate their marriage? Or is that like a white elephant where everyone knows but no one wants to bring it up?
yes, but it's impossible for homosexual couples to have productive sex. Hence, where is the legality in their sexual activity/sodomy?
In 2003 the US Supreme Court found that the Texas government couldn't criminalize "sodomy" when it was occurring between consenting adult individuals in the privacy of their own home. That ruling is widely regarded as invalidating anti-sodomy laws throughout the US. I.e., sodomy is no longer illegal. (Apparently only 2 states, Virginia and North Carolina, are continuing to attempt to enforce sodomy laws since the 2003 USA SC ruling.)
Link:
In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court ruled that that laws governing non-commercial, private sexual conduct between consenting adults are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held:
?The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
Even one of the most conservative justices, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent that sodomy laws are ?uncommonly silly.?
In voting to strike down Texas? sodomy law, Justice Sandra Day O?Connor recognized that ?After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal.?
This argument is so patently stupid, yet it keeps coming up. Marriage requires the ability to consent, something that two (or more, but thats a different can of worms) human adults have. As much as you want to marry your goat, the courts do not consider it capable of entering a marriage or any other kind of legal contract.
I'd say no, as that would CLEARLY violate seperation of church and state. Some church people often complain about the interpretation of the seperation since it prevents them from messing around too much with government, but it protects them as well.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
:thumbsup:
expansion of rights to those it has been withheld from is a good thing....
this is a good thing people jeez...
The more freedom and rights for the people..... the better the society.
I think some of you missed some classes somewhere along the line.
expansion of rights to those it has been withheld from is a good thing....
this is a good thing people jeez...
The more freedom and rights for the people..... the better the society.
I think some of you missed some classes somewhere along the line.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter