That’s what makes it a tauology. You’re saying that marriage is (in your narrow opinion) between a man and a woman therefore it must be defined as being between a man and a woman. That’s just garbage as an argument.
That is quite possibly the most specious thing I’ve ever seen posted on this message board.
Just so you know: we are a secular country. Putting your own absurd definition of “deviant” aside , the Constitution does not recognize any difference between Christians or non-Christians and does not allow for any difference in the rights of either.
Furthermore, Christianity is irrelevant to the conversation. Homosexuality is not a deviation from Christianity but an innate orienation. Not that it would matter anyway because Christian belief has no bearing whatsoever on American law.
Your Bible passage is not only mistranslated (the word “homosexual” does not appear in the Bible. The word translated as “boy prostitute” is also incorrect. We just had a thread which analyzed those translations. The verse you quoted does not condemn homosexuality.
More importantly, though, it’s simply irrelevant. The Bible has no more legal authority than the Cat in the Hat. It has no bearing on US law or on civil rights.
“Deviant” in conjunction with sexuality implies something that is abnormal or unhealthy. Homosexuality is both normal and healthy. You should come up with a different word so as to avoid giving the impression of ignorance and bogotry.
My main problem with your reasoning, ** Diogenes the Cynic **, is that presumbly congress or a committee in congress had access to the same intelligence that Bush had and concluded the same thing yet Bush lied about it and Congress was just mistaken.
The Golf Of Tonkin Resolution back in 1964 which helped escalate the Vietnam conflict. It passed in the house unanimously and only received two “no” votes in the Senate.
You’ve proposed an alternate hypothesis, but no facts to support it. All of the objective facts available indicate that Bush **IS ** intelligent (ie, more than average).
I use the word deviant as defined by my American Heritage Dictionary:
If you consider that word to have a negative connotation, rather than going by the denotation given in the dictionary, then I can understand how that would give you the impression that I am ignorant and bigoted. I’ll use a more PC word: different.
Is “What it specifically does NOT do is reward differing behaviour and that is what all the whining is about” better?
Try this one, then, which is from my King James version:
The oldest version of the Bible (in English) used in America specifically spells out that a man’s natural use is the woman. If this Bible passage is also “mistranslated”, then that’s a different argument. I’m not the one doing the translating, and I’m pretty sure that neither of us have taken Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic).
The Bible has no direct authority on U.S. law. The congressmen that we elect have morals (often based on the Bible), and these morals influence their decision on whether or not to pass certain laws.
Which is why it is unfortunate that some homosexuals who are in loving, committed relationships cannot have the same things that married heterosexuals have, such as joint filing of taxes and the ability to adopt a child.
Marriage is, IMNO, between a man and a woman because of not only the two Bible passages that I’ve given you, but also because of 1) The reproductive structure that makes man and woman complimentary partners, 2) The fact that only a man and a woman can produce new life, and 3) The fact that marriages have traditionally been between men and women. Do you want to redefine marriage as a “union between two people of any sex?” Then you are being restrictive, just as I am. What about joining three or four people together? What about joining a man and a goat together? Where do you draw the line?
It is not garbage. Allowing gays to join in a union, with the same tax-rights, child-rearing rights, and whatever other rights you want to throw in there, without calling it “marriage”, is a solution that would make both sides happy. It would allow gays to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. It would also allow Christians (and other people that think homosexuality is wrong) not to be reminded of what they consider sinful behavior, every time the word “marriage” is mentioned.
Interesting. By that definition homosexuality is excluded. Homosexuality does not “differ from the norm.” It is part of the normal range of human sexuality.
No, because no one is asking to be rewarded. What Bush wants to do is punish differing behavior.
Still wrong. The KJV is one of the worst translations out there.
You are mistaken in your assumption. I have taken Greek and can do my own translating. Rather than go into my whole Corinthians song and dance which I’ve done a number of times on this board I’ll just link you to this thread in which I discuss the translation extensively.
Their "morals’ do not give them the right or authority to abridge the civil rights of others through legislation. The Bible cannot be used to justify legal discrimination and it has no place in the debate. It cannot even be consulted. Any arguments must be framed in non-religious terms. Just because you think your religion says that something is immoral doesn’t give you the right to make it illegal.
I have no idea what your point is here. It sounds like you agree that the law is discriminatory but I don’t see what it has to do with my point about equal protection.
The Bible is irrelevant and has no legal authority as I mentioned. It is illegal for lawmakers even to consider it.
How about the prostate gland that makes men “complimenatry partners?” :rolleyes:
This is a nonsense argument. Actually, I don’t even really know what the argument is. Are you attempting to make some sort of teleological argument about sex? If so, it’s lame, inaccurate and legally irrelevant.
What does reproducing have to do with the price of rice in Thailand? Is it your contention that reproduction must be a result or a reason for marriage? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to marry? How about senior citizens? How about people who just don’t want kids? What the hell do marital rights have to do with sexual reproduction?
and 3) The fact that marriages have traditionally been between men and women.
[/quote]
There’s that tautology again. “It’s between a man and a woman because it’s between a man and a woman.” It’s no argument at all but a restatement of an opinion.
Do you want to redefine marriage as a “union between two people of any sex?” Then you are being restrictive, just as I am. What about joining three or four people together? What about joining a man and a goat together? Where do you draw the line?
[/quote]
Watch out for banana peels on that slippery slope.
we stop at any two consenting adults for now. That’s no more arbitrary or subject to slippage than the way marriage is defined now. The key words are “consenting” (which lets out animals or children) and “adults” (which lets out animals or children).
Polygamy is another debate. Frankly, there isn’t any groundswell of support for it right now so I don’t think you have to fear it. There is no legal mechanism which would necissitate the recognition of polygamous marriages if same-sex marriages were recognized. It’s a fallacious argument and it is not an excuse for the government to discriminate based on genetalia.
Yes it is. To argue that X is true because it’s true is tautological, circular garbage.
I would accept that, but I would personally call it marriage. I think most gay people would accept that too. It’s basically what they wanyt and the public can still call it marriage regardless of what it says on the paperwork.
quote]It would allow gays to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. It would also allow Christians (and other people that think homosexuality is wrong) not to be reminded of what they consider sinful behavior, every time the word “marriage” is mentioned.
[/QUOTE]
Do Christians have some sort of guaranteed right not be “reminded of sinful behavior?” Where is that in the Constitution?
I think gay marriage opponents always try the slippery slope argument because they know they can’t argue against the merits of gay marriage all by itself. That’s why they try bringing out the polygamy and bestiality boogeymen.
But homosexuality does differ from the norm, in that well into the 90th percentile of people are heterosexuals. (note: I said nothing about wrong or right)
What Bush wants to do is protect the institution of marriage. If you see it as punishing differing behavior, then that’s just your way of looking at it.
Funny, you’d think an older version would be more accurate, and a newer version would be more politically correct and overly-simplified. If you want to use The New Revised Standard Edition or The Contemporary English version, be my guest. Those are the three versions I have, and in all three cases, Romans 1 condemns homosexuality.
It’s nice to know that you have taken Greek, and I suppose that you have the right to make your own translation, now that you know the full meanings of printed Greek words. But it’s the word of three major groups of Bible translators (the ones who did the KJV, the NRSE, and the ECV) against yours.
I agree, which is why we should give homosexuals joined in union (but not marriage) the same civil rights (taxation without representation, being able to adopt a child, etc.) as married heterosexuals.
One shouldn’t consult the Bible when deciding whether or not to pass a law? Makes sense to me, but how would you enforce that? I’m sure Moses’ “Thou shall not kill” commandment had somewhat of an influence in making murder illegal. As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to remove the Bible’s influence on lawmakers making things illegal, because they often base their vote on their own morals, which often stem from the Bible.
And I’ve already mentioned that the Bible is relevant and has indirect authority. If you want to base public policy solely on the interests of people, and not use any of the Bible’s language in consideration, fine. But the interests of people (such as the interests of many not to allow gay marriage) are often based on the Bible.
How does that make them complimentary? Complimentary things are opposite. Green and red, which are opposite on the color wheel, are complimentary. Men and women are complimentary because they are opposite sexes and have differing reproductive systems. Two men are not complimentary because they are the same sex and have the same type of gland: the prostate. By the same token, red and red are like colors, not complimentary colors, because they are the same.
I am making a teleological argument. I am explaining sex by its end (purpose), which is creating life. If you consider it lame, then that’s an opinion. It’s not inaccurate: only heterosexual intercourse produces new life. It is legally irrelevant, but I wasn’t saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of the sex argument. I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong. These beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.
Again, I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong, not making a legal argument. However, these beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.
And a restatement of a large part of public opinions and traditions. And as I’ve said, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of not making gay marriage legal).
It’s good that you recognize that polygamy or marriage of man and animals is of a higher degree than gay marriage, but the point was not lost on you.
“For now” are the operative words in that sentence.
Where did you get those key words?
The government is not discriminating based on genitalia. That is an oversimplification. They are discriminating based on their personal beliefs and the desires of a large part of the public.
I’m not saying it’s not garbage based on anything having to do with truth. I’m proposing a solution that would overall, solve the problem on both sides.
You and the public are free to call it marriage, regardless of whatever term comes about (freedom of speech). But if it’s called something else, then Christians can talk among themselves about marriage without being reminded every time of what they consider sinful behavior (homosexuality).
They don’t have that Constitutional right. However, as I said earlier, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of Christians of not making gay marriage legal). IMO, the public interest of Christians of not wanting to make gay marriage legal (we’d still make gay unions with full civil rights legal) far outweighs the public interests of gays wanting to nitpick and call their union “marriage” rather than something else.
Interracial marriage differs from the norm also. According to the Census Bureau , only about 4 percent of marriages are interracial.
Would you describe those relationships as deviate? Just a reminder on the definition of that word:
When it could be technically accurate to describe homosexuality as being at variance with what is normal, there is a strong connotation that you are calling the homosexuality itself unacceptable. Notice what the first listing is for that word.
Not only does Bush want to prevent gays from ever getting married, the Constitutional Amendment he supports would even prevent gays from getting the benefits of marriage under a different name like “Civil Unions.”
Sexuality isn’t that simple. It’s a continuum. not a dichotomy. The entire spectrum is normal. Exclusive homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy orientation within the normal spectrum of human sexuality. Numbers are irrelevant.
Protect it from what? How is my marriage threatened if gay folks get married too?
That is factually what it is. It’s the withholding of a basic civil right from a specific class of people. Discrimination is punishment.
Why would you think that? The KJV is actually riddled with mistranslations and even some interpolations that don’t exist in the original text. Newer translations run the gamut. Some are very good and very thorough. Oxford Annotated is the standard academic translation and it’s quite good. I also like the NET which is heavily annotated. They still get Corinthians wrong, though. You are right that any number of modern translations are absolutely wretched, especially the ones that tend to paraphrase (with heavy theological bias) in “modern language.”
Actually, Romans was not the translations I meant to quibble with (I confess that I scanned your last post a little too quickly and thought you were posting the KJV translation for Corinthians 6. I guess I didn’t bother to actually read the verse since I knew the KJV has Corinthians wrong- my apologies. I got a little too dismissive and sloppy). With Romans it’s a matter of interpretation. It’s not a settled fact that it represents a flat condemnation of homosexuality but I’m not here to argue about that in this thread. (I just got done with two other threads discussing alleged Biblical condemnations of homosexuality). You’re welcome to interpret it however you want. My point in this thread is that the Bible is irrelevant to the legal questions about same-sex marriage.
Not just mine but a number of contemporary scholars. If you read the thread I linked to it contains a thorough discussion complete with cites to other scholars and books.
Fine by me. I think I’ll call it “marriage.” You can call it whatever you want.
Judicial review works for me. You can’t legislate purely religious mores into law. You have to provide some other raeson than a religious one to circumscribe civil rights for a specific class of people. It is for the Judicial branch to determine if a law is unfairly discriminatory.
It might surprise you to know that virtually all societies have prohibited murder (however it is defined) both before and after “Moses.” It’s pretty much a universal and entirely pragmatic human custom. Murder is not prohibited in the US becuaes Moses said so. It’s prohibited because it’s necessary in order to maintain an intact society.
Basic spirutality and faith is one thing. Specific religious rules are another. The government cannot force everybody to follow the laws of any one religion. You think Christianity condemns homosexuality (which is actually not a universal part of Christian doctrine. Some Christians condemn it, some don’t). That’s fine for you, but you don’t have a right to force anyone else to conform to that belief any more than Hindus have the right to forbid you to eat cows.
No it doesn’t. The Constitution says so.
There is no public interest which is served by allowing one group of people to force everyone else to conform to its own religious beliefs. Just the opposite, in fact. The public interest is damaged if one group endeavors to curtail the rights of others based on a purely religious belief. How do we decide which religion is right? What do you do if the Bible is in conflict with the Koran? The Constitution says the government can’t take sides. It can’t endorse one religion over another.
Your free practice of religion begins and ends with you alone. I have no obligation whatever to live by your beliefs.
It was a joke. The prostate gland (so I’m told) when stimulated by, say, a penis is reputedly a pleasant sensation. There’s your teleology. I was being sarcastic.
I disagree that this is the only purpose of sex or that sex necessarily has any purpose at all other than whatever individual humans arbitrarily choose to ascribe to it. It is ceratinly not the purpose of government to decide why people can have sex and why they can’t.
It’s inaccurate if you want to suggest that there’s anything unnatural about it. It’s perfectly natural and commonplace throughout the animal world.
So what?
Frankly, I’m only interested in legal arguments since the ostensible topic of this thread, at least in part, is the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. Moral arguments are completely subjective, and really, I don’t care.
Ad populum arguments are a very poor reason to abridge civil rights. There was a time when most of the public opposed interracial marriages. Did that justify laws against it?
You would have to show that legalizing gay marriage is somehow a threat to the public interest before that argument would fly. I would contend that it is hardly in the public interest to abridge the civil rights of others simply to avoid scandalizing Christians.
Bestiality is just a red herring. Polygamy is another matter and I’m undecided about it. Personally, I find it distasteful but I recognize that my personal distaste is not an adequate reason, per se to prohibit it.
I would say, though, that a ban on polygamy is not discrimatory. It applies equally to everyone. It does not create a special class of people to exclude from certain benefits as bans on same-sex marriage do.
Yep, but only as it pertains to polygamy.
They are the typical red herrings which are normally thrown down as part of the slippery slope argument. You only tossed out the “beastiality” fish though.
Your second sentence describes something which is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.
Christians are free not to call it marriage either way. It’s no skin off my nose. It’s my guess that the word “marriage” would become the common vernacular soon enough, no matter what it says on the paperwork. You may call it whatever you wish. It’s no skin off my nose.
I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that any public interest is served by pandering to anti-gay religious sensibilities but I think we can agree that civil unions are a reasonable compromise.
You actually did not answer Diogenes’ question. Even if you are not making a legal argument and this is “just a reason” to be against gay marriage, the reproduction rebuttal by Diogenes made your “reason” seem illogical, and you chose not to defend it.
This is like a white racist saying in the 1950s:
“IMO, the public interest of whites not wanting to sit in the front of the bus with blacks far outweighs the public interests of blacks wanting to nitpick and sit in the front of the bus rather than in the back of the bus.”
The common things in this analogy are: the Christians really have no “public interest” in not allowing gays to call their union “marriage”, and just as the legal system finally realized that you cannot be called a truly free and democratic society if you force blacks to the back of the bus (even if some people considered this a nitpick: “who cares? you get to ride the bus don’t you?”), so hopefully the legal system will realize that you cannot force unions of gays to be called something other than marriage.
I don’t want to speculate on the “morality” of homosexuality (it is an entirely different subject), but if society allows gays to live together and have sex with each other, then there is no logical or legal basis for saying their union cannot be called marriage.
Since the law does not punish single mothers for having kids out of wedlock (which is a sin according to Christians) can you say: "Their descendants should have all the rights of the children of married couples, but can only be called ‘dependants’, because calling them ‘children’ would remind Christians of what they consider sinful behavior every time they use the term ‘child’ "?
Does this make sense? No! The case for allowing “civil unions” for gays but not calling them “marriage” is similarly insane.
If I take your post at exactly literal value, then I’ll concede the point: Bush is probably more intelligent than the average schmoe. I’ve seen no evidence, however, suggesting that he’s more intelligent than the average mayor, let alone the average president. Given that we tend to want extraordinary values in our leaders, I think it’s fair to hold him to a higher standard.
I do realize that we’ve probably been arguing different things: I’ve been assuming we were looking at whether he was a smart guy for a president, or for any other leadership position.
At the risk of making this thread more of a hijack than it already is - why wouldn’t you say that a ban on polygamy is discriminatory, as the effects are felt by Mormoms and Muslims (and perhaps some other religions’ adherents) than on non-Mormon Christians and on Jews?
I’m going to make an attempt to try and start condensing my posts, since post-lenghts are growing exponentially on both sides. I’m sure we all have jobs and families that we’re busy with. Anyhoo:
Which is why I disagree with President Bush on his stance. As I’ve said,
I was actually not defending President Bush when I responded to the assertion that he wants to discriminate against gays and said that Bush does not want to punish differing behavior. I was making a distinction. It is true that the amendment does, in fact, effectively discriminate against gays and punishes differing behavior. But it’s not like “time to pass a law to punish those evil deviants” is what runs through Bush’s head. And the non-sensical phrase in the header “Republicans: marriage bad” does not do justice to republican stances on the issue.
You’re right. See above.
I have already explained my use of the word deviant, and have said that if you want to use a word such as “differing”, feel free to. I was going by one of the definitions in my dictionary, not the definition that you bolded from your dictionary.
You’re right; my reason does seem illogical. That’s because it’s a faith-based reason, and not a legally-based-reason, but it is an explanation of a reason why it is in the public interest (59% of Americans are against gay marriage) not to make gay marriage legal.
There is a logical basis: public interest.
If there were a big enough public outcry over calling wedlocked children “children”, then I would have no problem legally changing the term to “dependents”, because it would be in the public interest.
Currently, the word “offspring”, by traditional definition, is restricted to biological children of parents (single or married). By the same token, the word “marriage”, by traditional definition, is restricted to the union of a man and a woman. Changing the definition of the word “marriage” to include gay unions would be like changing the definition of the word “offspring” to include non-biological (adopted) children of parents.
Which is why the laws have changed: because people came to their senses and realized that being black is neither bad nor sinful. Because of this realization, the public interest has changed. As for public interest against gay marriage, the public has a reason to think that gay marriage is bad and sinful: The Bible. Which is why it’s going to be harder to convince people to change that law.
Your marriage is not threatened, but the term “marriage” is corrupted if gays are allowed to join in a union coined by the term “marriage”, because traditionally, marriage has been restricted to being between a man and a woman. Just look at a current marriage appliation. You’ll see that the terms “groom” and “bridegroom” are on either side. A groom is male. A bridegroom is female.
Let’s say I sexually preferred redheads more than most people. Well then, I’d be part of the continuum of sexuality and part of a minority, just as gays are. Whether of not my preference would be healthy is debatable. However, it would be abnormal, just as homosexuality is, just because of the fact that I am part of the minority.
Obviously, you and I will have to agree to disagree on our personal beliefs about homosexuality. I was listing my personal beliefs, as well as what is probably a large part of the basis of the public’s interest against gay marriage. There are more important Biblical things to focus on, such as loving your neighbor, following the Golden Rule, obeying the Ten Commandments, and accepting Jesus as your Savior.
I’m pretty sure that, in America, Moses’ law was among the long list of reasons that politicians decided to vote for making it illegal, though.
There is a public interest which is served by allowing one group of people to force everyone else to conform to its own religious beliefs. The interests of a majority of the public not to allow gay marriage is served by passing laws forbidding it. Whether or not a majority of the public is morally right or not doesn’t matter. Our political process for determining what is right or wrong is the established method of how a bill becomes a law, including the judicial review that you mentioned (to keep congressmen and the President in-check).
I use the argument, which I admit is slippery slope, to point out that a union called “marriage” between gays is a less extreme example of deviating from the traditional definition than a union called “marriage” between polygamists or beasts.
But the government does take sides. Our New Year is a federal holiday. The Hijrah (muslim) New Year is not. Separation of church and state does not forbid the government from making laws based on their own personal beliefs (which are often based on the Bible). It does, however, forbid the government from establishing one religion as the religion that everybody in the country has to follow.
I’m not defending what the government is doing: I’m saying that discriminating solely on the basis of genitalia is an oversimplification.
Then we agree? Cool.
My apologies; I guess I failed in that regard. This post is exceptionally long and sloppy.
Engineer Dude seems to have no concept of the difference between “public interest” and “public opinion.” Just because the majority of the public wants something, that doesn’t mean that it’s in the “public interest.”
And just because the public wants something by a wide margin doesn’t make it right.
I fully understand the difference. But anyone can write off anything that the public is opposed to as being in the “public interest” anyway. A good way of trying to go about truly determining what is in the public interest is by doing something that we do everyday in our free society: polling people for public opinion.
As I said earlier:
Perhaps one day, the Public will decide that not allowing gays to marry is wrong (just as they, along with politicians, decided in the 50’s/60’s that not treating blacks equally with whites was wrong). That day, obviously, has not come yet. And as I said earlier, people came to their senses and realized that being black is neither bad nor sinful. Because of this realization, things have changed. As for gay marriage, the public has a reason to think that gay marriage is bad and sinful: The Bible. Which is why it’s going to be harder to convince people to change that law.