Help save marriage! sign the federal Marriage amendment petition here!

Marriage Builders

Help save marriage!

help get the petition out help save traditional
marriages thank you! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Wouldn't it be better if we instead supported a national initiative to make infidelity a punishable offense? That would definetely save marriage as an institution.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by T00MuchCoffeeMan:
Wouldn't it be better if we instead supported a national initiative to make infidelity a punishable offense? That would definetely save marriage as an institution.<hr /></blockquote>What, you mean put some teeth back in the Alienation of Affection law? Wouldn't that be a shock? I remember this conversation on a thread some months ago and it was pointed out that in order to make the law a politician would have to vote for it, and after all look at their strong moral values!

I wish that law DID have teeth still, I would have loved to sue OM, their boss and heck, maybe even my in-laws. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

A marriage contract (and it is a contract) is the only contract in America that can legally be IGNORED and broken with no consequebces whatsoever.

Alienation of Affection laws are alive and well in North Carolina.

Use the laws in your state, if the laws are still good then use them..but this is something we can do, to help marriages. traditional ones.

I am not in a marriage any more..due to death now..
but boy if I could use the law the allienation one..I would go for it and would win it.

but that is not on the books here..

I wish people would use the laws that are on the books..even sodomy is still on the books in some places..

I think the world is getting so screwed up, and people pretending they don't know right from wrong, it is making life difficult for everyone.
IT makes me want to vomit..I feel like hiding someplace but where do you go to get away from this crazyness..

I remember when I was younger and could walk the streets and feel safe, play in a park, be out after dark..

all that has changed is people let the evil people win. evil is taking over because when something happens people instead of helping they say..BUT...or well IF..there is no it's ands and buts or what ifs..

there is right and wrong..and the people are winning...marriages are not sacred or safe.
our children are not safe either..if some gay person singles them out to introduce them to a gay lifestyle.

I have councelled lots of teenagers..who were suicidal because they thought they were gay..BECAUSE someone did something to them..and figured they were lesbian or homosexual because it was the same sex person and they thought they were now..one of them..so confused..and most dead because they did not know any different so they either continue in the lifestyle believing a lie..or else become a cutter..or commit suicide to get out..of the pain and shame..
it is all too sad...
God help us all!!!!

it saddens me to see you soliciting this here. i feel it has no place here. we are here to save our own marriages---not judge others for theirs. this is sad.

A Constitutional Amendment?

Please take a moment and read the following...these are the Amendments that have been made to the Constitution (edited somewhat for considerations of space):

Article I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article XI.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Article XII.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President...

Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article XIV.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article XVII.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Article XVIII.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article XIX.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Article XX.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Article XXI.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment XXII.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Amendment XXIII.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Amendment XXIV.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXV.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Amendment XXVI.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Amendment XXVII.

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
.
.
.
.
Now, what stands out when you compare these Amendments with the one proposed in the original post?

For me, it is the fact that only ONE of the Amendments (#18 regarding Prohibition, which is also the only Amendment to be repealed) deals with what could be construed to be a "moral" issue.

What does that tell you?

For me, it means that the Constitution of the United States, and its subsequent Amendments, deals only with the enumeration of powers granted to the government, the limits of those powers, and to provide for the protection of the rights of individual citizens.

The Constitution is not a moral code, nor is it a religious document, nor is it a document which favors a particular race, creed, or lifestyle.

This proposed Amendment would bring an end to that tradition, and put the government in the sticky business of legislating morality.

Sorry, but my government is supposed to build roads, defend the borders, and regulate trade...not peek into people's bedrooms and punish them for "immorality."

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sorry, but my government is supposed to build roads, defend the borders, and regulate trade...not peek into people's bedrooms and punish them for "immorality."<hr /></blockquote>Then please pray tell why does our government treat divorce like the bankkruptcy of a corporation?

...not to mention how the courts have taken steps beyond the will of the people... more and more...

...is this not a government of the people...
...and is it right for the judicial branch to quash that will...
(even if it's not your will/desire???)

...and the appointment of federal judges blocked... by litmus test of political correctness... is that OK too?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Jim/NSR

Toomuchcoffeeman,

A counterpoint...if gay marriage were legalized, then gay divorce would follow.

Jim,

If the "will of the people" infringes upon the rights of other individuals, then the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically grants the judicial branch the power to quash that will.

The end of slavery, women's suffrage, and desegregation were all contrary to the "will of the people" at some point, yet failed when held up to the standards spelled out in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When necessary, the Constitution was amended to make this clear.

Since when is deviant behavior... 'a right'?

Why is it you can't accept the fact that there is a next step...
...the 'right' of tri-unions
...the 'deprived' right of non-monogimous unions
...the 'right' to live in multiple adulterous relationships
...the 'right' of 'man-boy' relationships...
...the 'right' of beastiality
...the 'right' of anything goes

...is every behavior not meritorious (by your argument)... not worthy of being deemed a 'RIGHT'?

...is there no point at which... our posterity can be protected from a depraved sense of immorality?... for the sake of yes... PC?

Yes...
end of slavery... was a correction of an evil
women's suffrage... was a correction of an injustice
and desegregation... was a correction of an injustice

...what we are being asked here is...
...can we now take an deviant, abberational behavior... and make it just?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

cjack, I don't see your argument at all. The marital ammendment is not defining morality, it is defining for the purposes of law, exactly what a marriage is. I see no difference there then an ammendement mentioning women because it was unclear whether original language saying men was the general term for all people (ditto for clarifying race issues). A marital ammendment would also be similar in spirit to clarifications of relgion.

Morality would be telling who could get married (and no, who does not include same gender, that is to put it bluntly...ignorant, no one with any intellectual honesty would argue that marriage evolved as homosexual paradigm, it evolved from procreation concerns). Morality would be passing laws (as often were the case) about socio-economic constraints, what married people can do sexually, and so forth.

However, this is all moot, cause it is not about marriage, it is about a shift in power. Heterosexuals enjoy more economic power, and cultural status than homosexuals, and that annoys advocates for homosexuals. I suspect if marriage were abolished alltogether in any state sense (leaveing it only a relgious activity), homosexuals would have no interest in, or advocate for "legalized" marriage. No ammendment will stop this shift of power, if the homosexual interest groups amass enough political muscle, they can use the courts, and pass laws giving them each of the specific benefits heteros enjoy. Such as mandateing insurance companies cover "domestic partners", stiffening laws that make it illeagle to "discriminate" so gays can force themselves into any enviroment...They tried to do this with the Boy Scouts of America (force the organization to allow avowed homosexuals leadership positions with the boys), and lost on religious grounds...but not by much.

I haven't read the petition yet, but will. How about contacting each of our state Reps in each of our states and asking them to design a petition to put a bill in congress?
I will contact mine. He's always answered me.
LouLou

Jim,

So, homosexuals are deviants on the same level as child molesters?

Homosexuals are no better than people who practice bestiality?

Is that really what you think?

If you really think that gays are just depraved individuals, should we start locking them up?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

sufdb,

I would argue that it IS a moral issue. This amendment push is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction by religious groups who feel that homosexuality is immoral or depraved.

Do we really need a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage? I think that's a little excessive, don't you?

That is the main point I was trying to make. I realize I've been sidetracked a bit, but let me repeat that this Amendment is excessive, unnecessary, and hopelessly out of step with the Constitution.

Marriage is (at the civil level) nothing more than a contract. A piece of paper that (as some of us have found) can be voided by the state. Now, I would be the first to point out that marriage is much, much more than that, but as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a contract between two people. On that basis, this amendment will fail, because all it does is discrimintate against who can enter into a contract based upon their sexual orientation.

As you pointed out, the Boy Scouts were able to discriminate against homosexuals based upon religious grounds. As the government of the United States is secular and officially neutral (or at least, its supposed to be) on matters of religion, this amendment won't fly.

excuse me but maybe some of us around here to bank the flames of our passions where the insitution of marriage is concerned! relationships can't be governed by the law anymore then morality can be governed. if we want change then we have to educate people as to why change is needed...not demand that they see things our way or else! sorry folks but even a dirty low down cheat has the right to be just that if they're so inclined. we may not like it but our very way of life demands that we tolerate it.
coach

cjack:...

...behavior... behavior... behavior...

...it affects adults... children... and families.

We can't just close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist!

'deviant' BEHAVIOR... is that which deviates... in the the case of homosexual BEHAVIOR... and it deviates greatly!

'abberational' BEHAVIOR... is that which is an abberation... (implied 'substantial') from the norm.

Is that the only reason the BEHAVIOR is wrong...
...NO...
...it's the impact on 'family'... and 'children'... that in the end counts!

...can anyone say... 'family rights"???

To assume that this form of behavior will be exclusively 'behind closed doors'... once the status of a valid 'marriage' has been conferred upon such a union... is closing one's eyes!

==================

On the issue of 'toleration'...
...today one may say... I only want to go as far as 'marriage'... being allowed.

What is to say that another group, let's say NAMBLA... says.... we too deserved the 'RIGHT"!

Can anyone say where you are going to draw the line?... and if so...where will the line be drawn?

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

[ July 20, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]

It's interesting that people here, (of all places), believe that we can legislate fidelity, marriage, or our feelings...

In my opinion, no amount of legislation, consequences, or any other type of punishment will do anything to keep marriages together. That has to come as a free CHOICE that both people make.

Jim,

I had no idea you were so intolerant.

The "line" is drawn at what CONSENTING ADULTS can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. I believe the government has no business dictating this.

If you truly believe that homosexuality is a deviant, criminal behavior which should be punished by the government, then I really don't know how to respond.

I got plenty of good advice and support from you during a difficult time in my life.

It saddens me to discover so much hatred and intolerance coming from you. I have lost a great deal of respect for you. Perhaps all of it.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Has anyone bothered to go read the amendment>>???
has anyone looked at the place where they will send a message to your representative..so you can have your voice heard..you also have the right to let them know your feelings if you think other wise.

I just don't think queers need a marriage license,
they already have proven their point and come out in public..

don't we have the right as married couples to keep a covenant between us and OUR GOD?? they cannot do that..because they serve the god of the world which is not the same as we do..because OUR GOD..the father of Jesus Christ is not going to allow them into
HIS KINGDOM..it says so..if you want to be with them fine..your choice but we have the right to stand for what we believe to be true..

Jesus died for all sinners..and those who choose to accept that fine..but don't throw sin back in Jesus face..don't keep practicing sin..if your an adulterer don't keep practicing it..either..same thing child molester.stop doing it..it is simple.
get your act together..stop...now..there are things we do but things that are sin and we do it and we knowingly keep doing it..is somehow stupidity..don't you think..you have not come into the knowledge of God..and have wisdom from God because if you did you would want to please HIM and also you would make your marriage work..work harder at doing things that are right..it takes work..being happy and being a christian is hard not easy..but it makes you to be able to sleep at night...and I think it is sad that this world is so screwed up..and people don't even know when things are right or wrong..
how gross do people have to be..
your grandchildren will be having sex with animals and your gonna think that is ok?? they already do that some kids do....people get your heads out of the sand..it is already happening..
I have talked to kids who have done it with animals..it is not in the future it is happening now..alot of them are wanting to die because of things they have done and feel not forgiven by God..because some screwball turned them onto the same sex convince them its ok to be gay ok to have sex with animals..makes me want to barf..I
am so sad over the state of some kids as young as 12 on the internet and places they go..it is sick..and you worry about your husbands check your kids computers but the thing is they know more then you do and brag how parents don't know how to find their stuff,one kid had his puter fixed to mail letters to announce his suicide to his friends after his death...how sick is that..
too many children going to hell...why? because of these people who don't hurt anyone..only want people to accept them to get closer to the kids..to teach them..give me a break...save your children homeschool them..save them and yourself..
find God while HE can still be found..

And here we go...

Isn't this God that you speak of supposed to be forgiving? And isn't it in the bible that it's God, and ONLY God that's supposed to be the ultimate judge? Isn't it always preached here and everywhere to let go and let God? If these people are committing such horrendous and dispicable acts...won't God take care of it in his/hers own way?

I get so tired of religion being used to create hurt and hatred. I thought the basis of God and all religion was supposed to be love. This stuff just makes me sad. Please take your crusade elsewhere. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Hope4Future
there would not be a marriage builders anymore if they had their way...
and my God I serve is the same God that sent Jesus to die for those queers but they need to ask God to forgive them for practicing homosexuality, perhaps you need to read Gods word to us all..not just them to all of us..no crusade..
this is the gospel truth..ignore it..if you want.
God is love, God loves them He hates the sin..He asks us to share the gospel with any who will listen and if they hear it and repent and get saved..then they will go to heaven along with the rest of the people no special things for anyone..
WHOSOEVER is what Gods word says that means me, you them..too..all of us..but we need to stop sinning and do what HE SAYS TO DO..so don't get angry at me..get angry at Him tell Him HE IS WRONG and your right..lol haha..not me..I am doing what HE wants me to do..with no regrets..

<blockquote>quote:<hr />you hope4future said Isn't this God that you speak of supposed to be forgiving? And isn't it in the bible that it's God, and ONLY God that's supposed to be the ultimate judge? Isn't it always preached here and everywhere to let go and let God? If these people are committing such horrendous and dispicable acts...won't God take care of it in his/hers own way? <hr /></blockquote>Yes HE will send them to hell as HE promised if they continue to do these things..but the thing is I have told whoever will listen here so..their blood is not on my hands anymore..I did what was required of me to do..

why don't you read Gods word to us..to all..and make up your own mind instead of listening to anyone else get alone with HIM and pray and seek HIM and see what happens..maybe you will be suprised at the outcome and answers you get..look at the last chapter of revelations it is what IS GOING TO HAPPEN...ALL ...who do not accept HIM rejects HIM and then HE judges..and that means you too if you do not know HIM...so now you know too..you have no excuse..is all..I will pray God will open your spiritual eyes and ears so you can hear and see..so you don't follow the blind..that lead the blind because that is whats happening..they are all going into the ditch...
and it's sad for them to go there..one right after another..

oh what I wanted to tell you..THIS IS MY THREAD..so you didn't need to read and you didn't need to post either..so I can say what I want on this..and I DID..just like you can post on your thread...grin..I LOVE JESUS...AND HE LOVES ME AND HE DIED FOR ME ON CALVARY..HE ALSO DIED FOR ALL MEN AND WOMEN..ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS CALL ON HIM AND ASK FORGIVENESS AND REPENT..and serve HIM...thats all...then their soul belongs to God..and satan won't have them anymore..simple really even children understand it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

A salaam aleichem. And praise be unto Allah.

Let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God
and knows God. Whoever does not love
does not know God, because God is love;
(1 John 4:7-8)

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your strength
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

"You will seek me and find me
when you seek me with all your heart
(Jeremiah 29:13)

We need a intimate relationship with God !

We need to have a personal relationship with God,

we need to have an awareness of His Son Jesus Christ

we need to have Jesus living in our heart!

"Do you have Jesus living in your heart? Have you asked Him to forgive your
sins and to cleanse you from all unrighteousness, as it says in, 1John1:9?

are you washed in the blood of the lamb?

God bless you
Know you are forgiven, if you asked God to forgive you, He did.

HE is faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you like He promised in His word..

God Bless you

It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement. (Gods judgement not mine, not yours..HIS)

we all have to decide for ourself each and every soul on earth has to choose..what they will do with Gods gift to us..Jesus..what did you do..accept Him, or reject Him..
accept Him we are with Him in paradise
reject Him we go to hell..it is soo simple children lead their parents to Him sometimes.
so no one can be ignorant HE left His will and testament for us..IT IS CALLED A BIBLE
Read it you are a joint heir look and see what you have inherited..if you choose to be one of HIS..

and what happens if you don't become HIS

Thank you Father that you hear our prayers and answer us. AMEN!
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
I forgot to add my post lol..hehhe
now the last one out please shut off the lights.
EarthAngel

[ July 21, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: SadEyes ]

I grew up in a family divided many ways over because of different religious beliefs. I heard the debates at every holiday and family get together. I hated Christmas for a lot of years. It was the loudest holiday of the year. And go figure, nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.

If you really care about what your preaching, you might think about learning a more tactful way to bring it across. I don't think you've changed anyones mind here.

whippit...

A salaam aleichem...
...'and also with you'. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

-------------

Spacecase:

No we can't legislate feelings...
But marriage can, and is already being legislated - at the state/local level.

What is being asked here... is to modify this legislation to include gays.
i.e. to change the definition of 'marriage'.

It isn't about CHOICE...
It isn't about punishment...

It is about keeping the concept of 'family'...
...the only basic, viable unit to protect and keep society alive and flourishing.

----------

cjack:

I really think you're missing my point(s):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The "line" is drawn at what CONSENTING ADULTS can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.<hr /></blockquote>...
...tell me why this is the line... that will not be crossed?
...and on what basis you can argue that this will not be crossed?

Yes... I believe that homosexuality is a deviant form of behavior...
whether it is criminal... (that's up to civil law)...
whether or not it should be punished by the govenment... (that's again up to civil law)...
... and that is NOT what I am advocating... please be kind enough not credit those ideas to me.

I truely love homosexuals...
I love drug addicts...
I love those addicted to gambling...
I love the homeless and sick...
I love child molestors... pedophiles...
I love rapists...
I love murders... thieves... and liars...
I love those cheat and slander...
I love those who break marriages...
I love adulterers... and you probably don't believe it... I still pray every day (usually more than once) for ex-wife too!

...but it doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable to me... (I guess that is what you mean by 'intolerance'... maybe?)
...nor does it mean that when there is attack on 'family' (or the definition of 'marriage')...
...I hate the attacker... but... I will stand on the morality I was raised on and embrace... to protect the sacredness of 'marriage'... one of the reasons I have been here at MB.

Does 'love' mean we condone... encourage... and embrace... destructive behavior?

Through this reply, I don't seek your respect... or anyone elses...
...nor do I wish to impose on you my belief, understanding or value of marriage...
...I just wish to express a concern for a betterment of marriage and family... that is so clearly deteriorating.

---------------

<blockquote>quote:<hr />...nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.<hr /></blockquote>... true... but we can hope that first that hearts can be touched and reached... and maybe... just maybe... with forces beyond the voice/thought of man... minds can be reached too.

----------

In perseverance and love...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

[ July 21, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: NSR ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NSR:
whippit...

A salaam aleichem...
...'and also with you'. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

-------------

Spacecase:

No we can't legislate feelings...
But marriage can, and is already being legislated - at the state/local level.

What is being asked here... is to modify this legislation to include gays.
i.e. to change the definition of 'marriage'.

It isn't about CHOICE...
It isn't about punishment...

It is about keeping the concept of 'family'...
...the only basic, viable unit to protect and keep society alive and flourishing.

----------

cjack:

I really think you're missing my point(s):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The "line" is drawn at what CONSENTING ADULTS can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.<hr /></blockquote>...
...tell me why this is the line... that will not be crossed?
...and on what basis you can argue that this will not be crossed?

Yes... I believe that homosexuality is a deviant form of behavior...
whether it is criminal... (that's up to civil law)...
whether or not it should be punished by the govenment... (that's again up to civil law)...
... and that is NOT what I am advocating... please be kind enough not credit those ideas to me.

I truely love homosexuals...
I love drug addicts...
I love those addicted to gambling...
I love the homeless and sick...
I love child molestors... pedophiles...
I love rapists...
I love murders... thieves... and liars...
I love those cheat and slander...
I love those who break marriages...
I love adulterers... and you probably don't believe it... I still pray every day (usually more than once) for ex-wife too!

...but it doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable to me... (I guess that is what you mean by 'intolerance'... maybe?)
...nor does it mean that when there is attack on 'family' (or the definition of 'marriage')...
...I hate the attacker... but... I will stand on the morality I was raised on and embrace... to protect the sacredness of 'marriage'... one of the reasons I have been here at MB.

Does 'love' mean we condone... encourage... and embrace... destructive behavior?

Through this reply, I don't seek your respect... or anyone elses...
...nor do I wish to impose on you my belief, understanding or value of marriage...
...I just wish to express a concern for a betterment of marriage and family... that is so clearly deteriorating.

---------------

<blockquote>quote:<hr />...nobody...NOBODY...ever changed anyone elses mind.<hr /></blockquote>... true... but we can hope that first that hearts can be touched and reached... and maybe... just maybe... with forces beyond the voice/thought of man... minds can be reached too.

----------

In perseverance and love...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR<hr /></blockquote>s..Good clarifying response Jim, you do come across a little strong sometimes with the deviant stuff, which is like raising a red flag in front of liberal bulls. But your reasoning is sound, my suggestion is spread the same message but tone down the rhetoric a bit, it just gives the opposing view a tool to refute you for bigotry (even though it isn't bigotry, cause no illwill is promoted for homosexuals). This assumes of course you have an agenda of persuading the undecideds to oppose gay marriage laws.

And I agree, this isn't about changing the closed minds of the obsessively "fairminded" no matter the consequences camp...this is about the hearts and minds of those who can be persuaded to accept the argument changing our social marital paradigm is not a good decision for a stable society (which of course benefits all, including homosexuals). It is tough being the minority in any circumstance, but ya know, that's life, and life isn't particularly "fair"...we cannot make decisions based on everyone being the "same", cause they are not. Society has to be run on a sound philosophic and pragmantic basis for the benefit of the majority and the minority.... to protect the person and property of minorities for sure...but not to promote their causes. Minorities must accept the realities of being a minority and live accordingly, or form their own country, where they are the majority and can make it work the way they want.

I am curious though, if we had the ability to create a new country, and offered it solely to homosexuals, I wonder how many would want to live in such a society?

[ July 21, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]

Oooof. What a hot-button subject for so many people! Particularly on this board, where the concept of "marriage" has been given a whole lot of thought . . .

One thing to recognize, I think, is that there are perfectly valid religious points of view that homosexual behavior is wrong and deviant, and that "marriage" is a sacred union between a man and a woman one of the primary purposes for which is to have children. To those who hold those beliefs, valid as they are, homosexuals are deviant people who need help and compassion, not enabling, and they should obviously never be permitted to "marry." You'll just never convince them otherwise.

But none of the actions taken by the Supreme Court, or by Massachussetts' high court, involve or impinge on those beliefs. No one, I believe, is saying that any religious body has to recognize gay unions, or teach that homosexuality is acceptable, or correct. Religions obviously remain free to condemn all kinds of immoral behavior (licentiousness, greed, unkindness) that the government can not prohibit.

What the courts are deciding, rather, is what the state can do vis a vis defining "marriage." The civil, legal definition of marriage doesn't have as much to do with the "purpose" of marriage, as it does with the kind of goodies that the state then accords to the people who it defines as "married." They get social insurance benefits, they can visit in emergency rooms and make emergency medical decisions, they can inherit, they own property jointly, and so on. "Married" folks, in other words, get SPECIAL benefits that the rest of us unmarried schlubs don't get. And the real question is whether there is a legitimate, valid reason for the government to distinguish between couples made up of a man and a woman, and those made up of two same-sex persons, when according those benefits.

Some folks in this thread (NSR, I think) brought up Rick Santorum's argument that if you permit homosexuality, then really anything goes -- bestiality, pedophilia, bigamy, etc. To me, that's just a false argument. There are obviously good reasons for the government to prohibit those kinds of relationships. With pedophilia and bestiality, the government should be able to protect those who are too young and/or vulnerable to protect themselves, and who are unable to give meaningful consent to what is being done to them. Bigamy (and adultery) have usually been prohibited on the theory that it's just easier to keep track of who's responsible for children (and for determining inheritance) in a two-parent relationship, and that relationships between caretakers are most stable.

The real question, to me, is whether there is any similar, non-religious reason to prohibit gay unions from receiving the "married goodies" with respect to a stable, consensual relationship between two members of the same sex. Remember the 1st Amendment. Any argument that has "because that's how God wants it to be" isn't a legitimate thing for the government to be saying.

If there is such a reason, I just don't see it.

It's inconceivable to me that a man and a woman, no matter how screwed up, or immature, or unstable, or abusive or whatever they are with each other, are permitted to marry, but my older, stable, loving gay friends who have been with each other for ten years and love each other fiercely, may not. Civil government sanctions marriage because it represents two citizens standing in front of their fellow citizens and saying "don't worry about us, we'll take care of each other." All gay folks want is a chance to say the same thing.

Obviously, all this is IMHO.

Nice post taxman, I am a Christian, pretty fundamental, but I do not argue the religious argument cause it dosen't apply to a secular issue...and far as the state is concerned, marriage is a contractural issue, so gay marriage proponents have to prove why adding their unions to the paradigm benefits the state...I have seen few such arguments, and none compelling. To argue "fairness" is the equivalent to arguing "religion", neither are relevant. And likewise the relgious folks have already taken their position as well as the fair folks, neither will budge....so the argument has to be for the undecideds <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

taxman..The real question, to me, is whether there is any similar, non-religious reason to prohibit gay unions from receiving the "married goodies" with respect to a stable, consensual relationship between two members of the same sex.

s...You made the same mistake many do. Did you make it purposefully, knowing you are trying to sneak in a bias...or was it simply a mistake?

The real question is NOT whether we should prohibit....BUT whether we should INCLUDE... If gays want to substantially alter the soicetal paradigm we live under...then they MUST prove why that is a net benefit to society, including heterosexuals....a tall order, but instead of doing this, they seek an end run by appealing to emotional issues of fairness and discrimination. There are no laws discriminateing against gays at all, they can do whatever they want under the law, and have all the same rights as heterosexuals if they want to marry. They just have to select a partner of the opposite sex...that is nothing remotely the same as you can't work here, eat here, travel here, live here cause you are a different race etc. Polygamists have the same problem, they can't enter state sanctioned marriage either, and they even have religion going for them (mormons for example).

tax...Remember the 1st Amendment. Any argument that has "because that's how God wants it to be" isn't a legitimate thing for the government to be saying.

s...I agree, is only useful in trying to sway public opinion if your relgion is the majority.

Tax...If there is such a reason, I just don't see it.

s...How hard have you looked. Could I see your detailed economic impact analysis on our society, just for starters. Can I see your analysis on the effect of a declining moral atmosphere on crime, etc. and how this paradigm shift would help/hinder this? Etc. etc.

tax...It's inconceivable to me that a man and a woman, no matter how screwed up, or immature, or unstable, or abusive or whatever they are with each other, are permitted to marry, but my older, stable, loving gay friends who have been with each other for ten years and love each other fiercely, may not.

s...I agree about the ease of marriage. It should be much harder to enter, with significant consequences if you leave it, and increased benefits/power to married people.

Tax...Civil government sanctions marriage because it represents two citizens standing in front of their fellow citizens and saying "don't worry about us, we'll take care of each other." All gay folks want is a chance to say the same thing.

s...Why? They can already do that, live however they want in committment, have whatever ceremony they want...I thought your issue was whether this was a benefit or not for society not they individual gay couple...which is it taxman?

Hey sufdb:

I just really disagree with you that arguing "fairness" is the same as arguing religion. The government is prohibited from instituting policies on religious grounds by the first amendment. By contrast, it is REQUIRED by the equal protection and due process clauses to be "fair," in that it may not make arbitrary distinctions between its citizens unless there is a legitimate and sufficiently compelling reason to do so. Under your rationale, the government could prohibit blue-eyed people from marrying (or receiving welfare benefits, or a driver's license) if it chose, unless those blue-eyed people could prove that their receipt of those benefits would "benefit" society as a whole. I just don't think that you're typically required to PROVE that you're entitled to an otherwise generally-available benefit. Rather, the government must prove why its reason for denying you that benefit withstands scrutiny.

Accordingly, the question for you is what detriment you can point to to indicate that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that the government therefore may properly discriminate against gay couples that wish to marry. As far as proving that gay marriage would be beneficial, obviously there's no economic study that can prove it because it hasn't BEEN legal anywhere in the world (except for the Netherlands, and now Canada). But if marriage itself is seen as a positive good on strictly economic, social terms, it certainly stands to reason that marriages between gays would provide roughly the same benefits, does it not? Wouldn't gays in stable, committed relationships be far less likely to be out at clubs, boozing it up, getting into trouble? Far more likely to save for retirement? To buy a home? To join community organizations?

Thanks for engaging me on my terms, by the way, I was kind of expecting to get flamed . . .

dear sadeyes----do you hold thid strong a belief for all those that dont serve your god---i thought many religions were different. they all hold different beliefs---is yours the only right one?

and please dont bother to tell me to not read your thread--i wont be. and quite possibly any in the future either.

the last thing i have to say is the last time i believe god showed himself---he was a burning bush. we may all be in big trouble when our time comes--for believing the wrong things.

The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ, whom you profess to follow...how very sad.

Shalom!

sad eyes,

Just wondering why you wanted the other thread closed?

nikko,
it saddens me to see you soliciting this here. i feel it has no place here. we are here to save our own marriages---not judge others for theirs. this is sad.
True that most are here to save their own marriage but some are here to help others. This also includes supporting the institution of marriage for the benfit of society in general.

from the other thread. What are your feelings on same sex marriage? for it or against it?
first off-chris, do you have any kids???[b]
Yes, I do, 2 girls.
[b]if so i pray to god they never do anything outside what you believe is moral or legally correct. as a parent you would shun them if they committed a crime???
No. I don't know where you got that from. I said loving a child unconditonally is not the same as condoning or celebrating their being gay.

to grow up as a kid knowing you could be tossed aside by your own parent if you step out of bounds is horrible.
I never even implied I would toss them aside.

im sorry if this offends you but it is how i feel
Doesn't offend me at all but you should read a bit more carefully as to what is actually written.

The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ,
Where does Jesus say to be toleraant of all behavior?

tax...I just really disagree with you that arguing "fairness" is the same as arguing religion. The government is prohibited from instituting policies on religious grounds by the first amendment. By contrast, it is REQUIRED by the equal protection and due process clauses to be "fair," in that it may not make arbitrary distinctions between its citizens unless there is a legitimate and sufficiently compelling reason to do so.

s....They are the same for the purposes of examining why each "camp" is intractable, and that was my point. To continue your point, the religion faction would say our system of fairness is Judeo-Christian based (which it is of course), so there you are, back to square one again WHOSE fairness do we apply? Fairness is not a principle it is a societal construct, and has to have an underlying basis to implement it....true? I suggested the "morality" argument does not apply in this case...so if religion is out, so is fairness. Using fairness arguments one can advocate absolutely any positon....WHEN you get to define the fairness parameters.

Tax...Under your rationale, the government could prohibit blue-eyed people from marrying (or receiving welfare benefits, or a driver's license) if it chose, unless those blue-eyed people could prove that their receipt of those benefits would "benefit" society as a whole.

s...And I would have no problem with that. I recognize the primary role of government is keeping the peace and promoting a stable society. If blue-eyed people shouldn't marry (each other), then I would imagine we would have evolved a marital paradigm that reflects that fact, and I would make the same observations if the blue-eyes sought to alter that societal paradigm...and I would make the same observation for any other silly (no offense meant taxman) analogies (and likewise I could make silly opposing ones, what's the point?).

The fact is govt has the power to order society, and it does so...end of story. We are debateing here why one position or another should prevail, there has to be some pragmatic basis, that usually means what's in it for me. So when a minority wants something, they have to persuade the majority it is a good thing for them too, otherwise there is no reason for granting the request...that is just the nature of human beings taxman. Knowing that, I direct my efforts to the undecideds to persuade them it is not in their best interests to support gay marriage, a strategy which will be more successful than visiting a moral battle on them....as the undecideds by definition are going to be predominantly pragmatic....otherwise they would allready have committed to one of the ethical camps. And I try to persuade my fellow anti-gay marriage advocates to adopt the same strategy.

tax....I just don't think that you're typically required to PROVE that you're entitled to an otherwise generally-available benefit. Rather, the government must prove why its reason for denying you that benefit withstands scrutiny.

s...This is essentially a red herring. Marriage is not a right, it is an intergral part of our societal paradigm. Something I will keep reminding the undecideds about so they are not confused by a clever stragety to make this a rights issue, and appeal to a sense of fairplay. Everyone has the right to marriage, you just can't marry children, mentally incompetent, same gender, animals, multiple partners, etc. *shrug* not in societies best interest to include those kinds of marital models. We had a similar movement a while back in our efforts to say males and females are the same and craft a unisex society, was an abysmal failure. What this movement essentially is doing is to create 4 a sex enviroment...male, female, gay male, gay female....which would raise all sorts of interesting (and distressing IMO) outcomes.

tax...Accordingly, the question for you is what detriment you can point to to indicate that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that the government therefore may properly discriminate against gay couples that wish to marry.

s...I don't have to prove anything. That's why they call it the status quo. And I do not consider it discrimination in any healthy (or unhealthy) sense.

tax...As far as proving that gay marriage would be beneficial, obviously there's no economic study that can prove it because it hasn't BEEN legal anywhere in the world (except for the Netherlands, and now Canada).

s...Maybe I should have said a proposal proving this using sound economic, social modeling.

Tax...But if marriage itself is seen as a positive good on strictly economic, social terms, it certainly stands to reason that marriages between gays would provide roughly the same benefits, does it not?

s...Absolutely not. HETEROSEXUAL marriage is seen as positive and good...primarily because it is the paradigm of choice for procreateing and raising children. Homosexual marriage confers no similar benefits to society that I can see. Nor is it even marriage, marriage is defined by thousands of years of human behaviour as a male/female interaction...homosexuals cannot claim the label, and are not entitled to apply it to themselves or their relationships, they don't qualify. I am unwilling to alter the definition of marriage, regaedless of what we do legally, if we do, then the word no longer has any useful meaning, might as well call it "going steady"...there is absolutely no point to marriage if the possibility of children does not exist. Obviously some heterosexual marriages involve infertile couples, or a very small number where both partners absolutely have no intention of ever reproducing, so they enjoy the advantages of the marital paradigm...but even then, there are strong psychological consequences because the possibility of children exists...this is something that will never apply to homosexual unions, it is a reality of our genetics.

tax...Wouldn't gays in stable, committed relationships be far less likely to be out at clubs, boozing it up, getting into trouble? Far more likely to save for retirement? To buy a home? To join community organizations?

s...??? Your point? They can do that now. Marriage is not going to make them any more or less responsible then they allready are.

It's interesting that people here, (of all places), believe that we can legislate fidelity, marriage, or our feelings...

I am so tiered of this whole things about ‘feelings’. People use feelings as the way to justify infidelity and all sorts of other bad behavior. They do this as thought ‘feelings’ are the most important thing in this entire world. While it is important that spouses care for each other and preferable that they are passionately in love, it is also true that feelings ebb and flow during a life long marriage. What tides us through in those times is another form of love. It’s called responsibility, caring for our spouse and our children and so forth, living up to our promises. Now that’s love of an enduring kind. It is also a form of passion.

Feelings of love and butterflies are an absolutely wrong reason to make life choices…. Like having affairs. Though I know of no good reason for having one.

Marriage is already legislated… or defined by law. Every state has a law that defines what a marriage is, who can marry whom, what each spouses responsibility is, the ownerships of joint and separate assets, and so forth. If you do not believe me find the family status for your state. I’ve read the ones for my state. The marriage laws in most state discriminate against many groups and individuals… for example brothers and sisters cannot marry each other, a minimum age for consent is set, polygamy is not allowed.

Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. We all discriminate all the time. When you decide to eat corn instead of peas you are discriminating against peas.

When we treat murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, etc as criminals we are discriminating. They loose some of their civil rights. For example a felon, even after paying their debt to society looses the right to vote. They become a sort of quasi citizen.

I heard a news story today of a 28 year old man who have lead the police to the body of a young lady he killed at a concert. Apparently he strangled/suffocated her to quiet her screams while he raped her. This ‘man’ had spent 16 months in prison for molesting a 3 (yes three) year old child. Why this man was not give the death penalty or life imprisonment to start with is beyond me.

We discriminate with the laws that say that a sex offender must register in their community with the police. By doing this we are discriminating. IMHO this is a very good form of discrimination as it protects potential future victims. Too bad our courts do not have the guts to do the right thing and put these people away forever. And as you might imagine convicted pedophiles and rapist all over the county are up in arms about how their civil rights are infringed on and how they are being discriminated against.

Some states used to have laws against inter-racial and perhaps inter-religion marriages. Those have, I believe, been removed in all of the states (in the USA). They were removed because they were a bad form of discrimination. Nor is normal behavior or people across all ethnic/racial groups to intermarry. It’s been happening all over the world since the beginning of time. And sex between interracial couples is a natural act because children are born from the union… the species is propagated.

Sure it is true that no one can stop another from committing adultery if they so choose. It is a free choice. So are many other destructive, hurtful and evil acts. Infidelity, theft, rape and murder are all exercised based on free CHOICE. Does not make any of them right. Nor does is mean that they should not be prosecuted.

There used to be consequences for adultery.. for both the WS and the OP. Most states have repealed those laws… in my opinion because those who repealed them wanted to be free to commit adultery. If there were legal/civil penalties for adultery OP’s might be less likely to engage in an affair. And perhaps many WS would be less likely to also. Why do I say this? Because in our society there are few if any barriers to adultery. By having no barriers and no punishment for it, our society is saying that adultery is OK.

We legislate morality all the time… our laws are a codification of morality. Our constitution is the same. They state very clearly what our moral and ethical beliefs are.

Sure laws against jay-walking have not thing to do with morality.. they are about safety. But laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc. are based on ancient moral codes (religious and otherwise) that have developed in our society over centuries.

There are laws that say we cannot discriminate against people for the sexual orientation. So homosexuals are protected by these laws in their jobs, homes, and in society at large.

Any of the benefits that homosexuals will gain from rewriting the laws that define heterosexual marriages to include them can be obtained from laws already on the books and from contracts such as powers of attorney; both legal and medical will cover all of this. Two people can also come up with a contract of their own to stipulate any darn thing they want to. Wills can be used to transfer assets at death.

We hear the horror stories of a gay person passing away and their family taking everything with no regard to the partner. Well if the two people involved had drawn up the proper legal documents then this could not have happened. The same issues exist for any couple who lives together unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual.

The issue is not if morality can be governed, but which moral issues are to be governed. For each of us the answer can be different. That is where the debate is. For someone to act as though anyone who does not agree with them is stupid, ignorant, and a zealot will certainly not win any arguments.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> sorry folks but even a dirty low down cheat has the right to be just that if they're so inclined. we may not like it but our very way of life demands that we tolerate it.<hr /></blockquote>Sure they have the ‘right’ to cheat. But we do not have to tolerate it at all. I divorced my previous husband because I will not be married to a cheat. I have ended relationships with ‘friends’ and family members who were cheating and would not end the affair. They can do what they please, but I nor anyone else has to tolerate it.

Where the law no longer defines infidelity as wrong, people can still make the stance by standing up to infidelity, by ostracizing an adulterer (WS and OP) as long as they choose to continue the affair.

Those whose behavior injures their family and society at large should be discriminated against, shunned and ostracized. That is one of the ways society has always protected itself. Sure we need to extend redemption to people… but redemption is greatly different from tolerance of all deviant, evil and hurtful behavior.

I believe that those who are seeking marriage for homosexuals are seeking more then simply getting the right to inheritance, medical care, etc. Most of the larger companies allow ‘partners’ to be included on health insurance. I am sure that many of the smaller ones do too. I believe they are seeking legitimacy… that they as a couple are equivalent to a heterosexual couple in all ways. And this is the question. Are they equivalent in all ways? I do not believe they are.

If we are to set aside the original definition of marriage and say that it is not only for heterosexual couples and that it is not for the propagation of our species in a protected family environment. If we are going to say that things change, society has changed and this is the right thing. Then perhaps we should look at the entire institution of marriage. Does it even work anymore today? With so many divorces and infidelity. Why have it at all? If there is not such thing as right or wrong, or sin, or what ever you want to call it. Then what is wrong with infidelity? People cheat because it feels good. Because they are in love and from much of what I am reading here… if it feels good and it is love, and between consenting adults then it is good.

Why do we have to change it so that homosexuals can marry? Why not just change it so that there is no marriage? Or make infidelity celebrated?

Where do we draw the line and why?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
The intolerance for other beliefs and points of view shown here is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ,
Where does Jesus say to be toleraant of all behavior?<hr /></blockquote>I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate.

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. And I hold that belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others, or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!

Hey Suf:
On the "fairness" question, perhaps we're arguing at cross-purposes, or over different conceptions of the term. When I say that the government must be "fair," I mean that it may not discriminate against its citizens on an arbitrary basis, i.e., that when it DOES make distinctions between its citizens (you may marry, you may not: you may get a driver's license, you may not), it must do so for a rational reason that is related to a legitimate government purpose. What it may not do is come up with irrational, arbitrary reasons for making classifications among its citizens. That is absolute black-letter Equal Protection jurisprudence that has been the same for a hundred years. The burden is ALWAYS on the government to explain its actions by offering justifications for them, and for the courts then to decide whether those justifications are constitutionally sufficient. Accordingly, it is absolutely clear that (to use my "silly" example) the government may NOT deny all blue-eyed people a marriage license (or a driver's license, or any other government benefit) without a legitimate reason for doing so.

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the fact that marriage has up to now been recognized only between a man and a woman ipso facto means that the government has a rational reason related to a legitimate government purpose to say that ONLY heterosexuals may marry. That just doesn't follow. By this logic, the mere fact that African-Americans had been slaves in the early part of the country's history, and were denied equal status under the law through the first part of this century, reflects the "race paradigm" that meant that the government could continue to require that they drink at separate water fountains, eat at different restaurants and so forth. Habit and custom are NOT, and never have been, sufficient on their own to justify government action or inaction. The notion of equality and liberty are evolving concepts to be sure, but our Constitution, our courts, and our legislators have always acknowledged that they exist to some extent outside what is considered the habit or custom of the day. Rather, they are ideals that we are supposed to constantly strive to achieve.

That said, the question becomes, again, what is the legitimate government purpose in refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry? What is the societal danger lurking within such marriages that justifies the government's refusal to recognize them? You never really address that, other than to darkly mutter about "distressing outcomes". Further, the only societal good you apparently see in heterosexual marriage is that it is a way to foster procreation and raising of children. But can't gay males adopt? Or lesbian couples have a child through in vitro fertilization? What facts can you point to that only specifically heterosexual marriages are "better" for the raising of children? Just because that's generally how it's been done up to now? As I said above, not good enough from a legal perspective.

Really, your argument is just one of power. We are in the majority, and this is how we like to do it, and if you want to do it a different way, than prove to me that it benefits me. In the first place, that is precisely why the equal protection clause is IN the constitution -- to protect the minority from the whims of the majority when those whims do not have a foundation that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. But again, even if the burden of proof WERE on me, I think that the arguments that gay marriage benefits society are strong. When people marry, they stand in front of their neighbors and claim responsibility for each other, and society then recognizes that relationship by transferring responsibility for those people to each other. By contrast, gays can live together all they want, and be as informally committed to each other as they wish, but without government acknowledgement that the relationship is special, is committed, is excusive, there will always be something missing. And there's just no reason that you've offered so far that justifies that absence.

will comment more later but there is this..

tax...Really, your argument is just one of power. We are in the majority, and this is how we like to do it, and if you want to do it a different way, than prove to me that it benefits me.

s...Yep.

tax...In the first place, that is precisely why the equal protection clause is IN the constitution -- to protect the minority from the whims of the majority when those whims do not have a foundation that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

s...But who decides what whims and how protected taxman.....the majority. *scratching my head* I am not sure of your point, the power holders always make the decisions, they always will...right? So if you want the majority (which are the de facto power holders in a democratic system) to accomodate a minority position, then you have to convince them...right?

The only reasons we have the concept of minority protection is because the MAJORITY thinks (correctly IMO) that such a policy is in the majorities best interest (which it is). But the minority cannot demand this, in fact they cannot demand anything at all, they have no power to do so, they exist at the pleasure of the majority. Such is life in our universe. Force rules, and force (for the present) resides in the democratic will of the majority of individuals who make up the american system of govt. We have tried other paradigms, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies ...they all fall, when the majority of individuals act in concert to defeat them. Democracy is no different, a minority cannot use it to force their issue, they have no means to do so... Which brings us back to my point....gay advocates adopt a risky strategy when they demand "rights", their case and life is not compelling to most heterosexuals. But if they are to prevail, there vest shot is trying to make a case that it will benefit society to allow them some of the benefits of "marriage".

[ July 21, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]

Mec-aleca-mec-meca-hiney-ho <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> (under used razz for mr. BC)

This "ammendment" doesn't do anything to save my marriage. Looks like a poorly disguised attempt to segragate a section of our country from comitting themselves legally to each other. Hell while we're at it lets add an ammentment banning abortion...that'll show'em. I don't need the goverment trying to "savemymarriage.com" I want that in more capeable hands.

This thread has seemed to touch a couple of nerves with some people. I am a christian. As a Christian I am commanded to love my neighbor as myself. And I do that.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.
For me and what I believe, I will keep that to myself. Hey I am a southern baptist that likes to dance, so I am in no position to pass judgement on anyone. I'll wait til I am dead and find out answers to all the questions I have now. The whole gay people go to hell thing, did Adam name the dinosaurs, and the less filling-tastes great debate.

My morals, ethics and religious beliefs are mine and I don't think I have the right to impose them on anyone. Cliche' to follow...Some of my best friends are gay. If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.

[ July 21, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: d_rose ]

If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.
So it'sokay for them to get married but as long as they meet the "age & counseling" requirements?
So why are you recommending anything, since anything goes as far as who gets married?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
If someone wants to get married, let them get married. Age and mandatory premarital counseling should be added to the list of requirements.
So it'sokay for them to get married but as long as they meet the "age & counseling" requirements?
So why are you recommending anything, since anything goes as far as who gets married?<hr /></blockquote>Chris
I was indirectly referring to the "legal" age at which someone becomes an adult and are responsible for themselves(or at least supposed to be)... that in itself could start a whole nother thread. As far as the counseling goes, I threw that in because that is kind of the reason some of us are here right now, saving marriages. I think that would be a way to "helpsavemarriage.com"

I understand what you meant.

My point is that you are adding some minor rules(age and counseling) and getting rid of major rules(who can actually get married.)

Suf:

I look forward to your other thoughts.

In short, though, it just isn't true that the majority always defines what liberties the minority can have. If that were true, African-Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

The minority in our society claims its power through access to the courts where, if they can demonstrate that the rights afforded to them by the equal protection clause or other parts of the constitution are being violated, they will receive a remedy, irrespective of what the "majority" in the country thinks. That was ably demonstrated in the fifties, when the Supreme Court essentially forced the desegregation of the school system on an unwilling public, and also just a few years ago in which the Court rejected the expressed will of the majority in Bush v. Gore. So to protect one's rights, one need not convince over half of the 280 million people in the country that THEY will benefit, one need only convince five justices that what you want is consistent with our concepts of liberty and equality.

Again, even if for some reason the burden is placed on those who want change, I think the arguments in favor still carry the day, and I've heard no argument here or anywhere else that change my mind. Society benefits when people form loving, stable relationships with each other. There is less crime, less loneliness, more community and civic spirit. Marriage gives people an incentive to form those relationships by providing certain benefits and by solemnizing a couple in the eyes of society. No one else is harmed by two consensual adults of any sex agreeing to be with each other and the common good is increased. It's a win-win!

Spacecase:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate.

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. And I hold that belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others, or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!<hr /></blockquote>Disecting this a bit...

I never said or even implied that anyone should be tolerant of any/all behavior; only of the right of others to have their own beliefs and points of view, including the behavior they consider appropriate....I think most everyone would agree with this premise... even me!... you can't take away someone else thoughts (good or bad)

I may be in serious disagreement with gay marriages, but that does not mean I don't respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief. ... very reasonable.

And I hold THAT belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others,... by "THAT" belief... are you talking about...
1. 'respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief'?
2. 'respecting other persons belief'?
...could you expound on this a bit?

or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.... does this imply no absolute truth in what is right or wrong? Is all truth relative?... based on the whim's of what is fashionable?

This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!... so is there any 'moral' foundation on which laws are based? (as Zorweb so wonderfully expressed)... if not 'morality'(collectively believed across many/multiple religions)... what is the basis for almost all laws?...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

[ July 21, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]

NSR; thank you for your reply and comments. I think we're in agreement.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And I hold THAT belief to be much more in line with Christ's teachings than the imposition of our own beliefs on others,... by "THAT" belief... are you talking about...
1. 'respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief'?
2. 'respecting other persons belief'?
...could you expound on this a bit?<hr /></blockquote>Respect someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.
This is a complicated thing, obviously, since different cultures, nations, groups, cities, areas, and times create different beliefs, some of which we may find abhorrent. But fundamentally I believe that if we are to uphold our right to liberty and the freedoms we hold so dear, we must be prepared to defend someone else's right to a belief that goes against our beliefs, with as much energy and enthusiasm as we may spend defending our belief.
The basis of this nation is not "freedom of speech, religion, etc. so long as it agrees with what I believe." It is a right that everyone has, regardless of what the majority, or a vocal, powerful minority may believe.
And how we put that into practice in the fairest, most equitable way has to start by each individual believing in it completely. I can't honestly go out and defend "freedom of religion" while at the same time saying that those who believe differently from me will not go to heaven, or that because my religion says X then it can't be Y...either there's freedom of religion and speech or there isn't. No qualifications to it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />or stating that our beliefs are right and others are wrong.... does this imply no absolute truth in what is right or wrong? Is all truth relative?... based on the whim's of what is fashionable?<hr /></blockquote>I think all truth is relative. I would NOT say it is based on "whim" or "fashion", but on more solid, established grounds. Who's to say that the truth I believe to be self-evident isn't something that offends another's beliefs? Can we talk about absolute truth in anything? The absolute truth for which people were burned at the stake 600 years ago was that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth...
There will be beliefs others have which are highly offensive to me, perhaps I'm an orthodox Jew and my neighbor eats pork...so, his belief is that there's nothing wrong with eating pork. I would expect him not to bring pork into my home out of respect for my belief, but can I shun him for eating pork in his home? Should I throw rocks at the neighbors who drive on Saturday because I consider it a sin?
Are we prepared to state that whatever truth we hold dear is absolute? That it will not change, or ever be shown to be wrong? I don't think so. Look at man's history; different faiths have developed with very different beliefs, many of which are contrary to what others believe. The US is perhaps the most explicit example of this. How many different versions of Christianity exist here? A couple hundred? Why is that? Because there are slightly different beliefs people have. When their Church did not meet their needs or beliefs, they created another. If everyone believed the same exact thing, this would not be the case. Same with Judaism; Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. Same with Islam; Sunni and Shiite, same with Hinduism; Same with Buddhism. Are we prepared to state categorically and without possibility of error that what WE believe is the absolute truth and that the rest of the world is living a lie? I'm not. Thinking like that created the inquisition and other horrors of human history; Sept. 11th is a prime example of holding your truth absolutely and without any regard for the truth of another.
When we have freedom of choice, religion, speech, beliefs, we must honor that freedom in all. Naturally we will encounter areas that are hard to defend. Perhaps my religion sees homosexuality as a sin, but does that mean that in another culture that MUST be so?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> This country was created precisely because people were tired of being forced to accept others' beliefs, and wanted the right to their own. How sad it would be if we now turn around and impose upon others the same things our ancestors fled 200+ years ago!... so is there any 'moral' foundation on which laws are based? (as Zorweb so wonderfully expressed)... if not 'morality'(collectively believed across many/multiple religions)... what is the basis for almost all laws?...<hr /></blockquote>There certainly is a moral basis for laws. And those laws reflect the morality of each nation (or should). But we must reconcile that with the freedoms we profess. If a law we want infringes on the beliefs of another, where do you draw the line? I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else. That is why we put rapists and murderers in prison. Because what they believe to be ok hurts other people; directly and in many cases physically. We may argue that having homosexuals legally married "hurts" us because we are exposing our children to what we may consider inferior morality. But the truth is, we as parents and as communities are repsonsible for teaching our children what we believe to be moral and right. That is not the responsibility of the state or the laws. And if we do so with balance and equity, our children will learn. We cannot protect them from seeing what we consider immoral, not forever anyway. So we teach them how to make their own moral judgments, so that when they are faced with the choice, they will make the one we consider right, or have the tools to do so. We can't legislate that, we can't force that, we can't hide our head in the sand an pretend it isn't there by making it "illegal". Drugs are illegal, but does the fact that they are illegal protect our children from exposure to them? No it doesn't. Forcing morality by legislating it will not create morality any more than I can force my XW to see the immorality of an affair, or the morality of the sacredness of marriage. I can't use laws to keep her married to me, or faithful to me...she has to believe it herself.

[ July 21, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]

space...I think all truth is relative.

s...So, if you think gravity is not your truth, you are not subject to the consequences of ignoring this truth?

ditto for a whole host of other chemical, physical, biological "truths".

Truth is not relative, besides that is an oxymoron. Relative truth is not truth at all, it is choice where the choice does not always result in the same outcomes.

If in fact we are created beings, than certain truths will follow....and they will apply to all regardless of whether they choose to believe or not....correct?

[ July 21, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]

Spacecase:

Thank you for your reply as well.

I too think we're in agreement.... but only partially.

We do agree on ...'Respect(ing) someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.'

We most decidedly disagree on 'truth is(being) relative'...
...although I respect your option to have a different opinion! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Once 'truth' of right and wrong change over time...
...there is no standard to base any action/behavior to condone/ignore/or punish.
The books on "boundaries"... make this clear.
Even the MB concepts become void of meaning...
...when 'truth' becomes relative.
And to teach our children that truth is 'relative'... is ask for a disaster... in what we can effectively teach them... since they will come to the conclusion (maybe just to themselves)... what mom... dad... said... maybe it's not true anymore!
Truth and Reality Exist

and...
I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else.... becomes a 'relative' nightmare... especially when the effects of how much it hurt someone... can't be seen until mnay years later. You may have guessed (or figured out) that I am Catholic. By your argument... doesn't abortion hurt(kill) the child... even when 97-98% of all abortions... are for the convenience of post-contraception[as per Planned parenthoo]. When more than one person gets hurt (a true social dilema)... on what moral basis do you (or society) (or the courts) (or the law makers) judge the degree of hurt/reparation. Are we going to inundate the courts with a case by case review... or are there standards we go by? Absolute standards... are the cornerstone of both justice and mercy.

--------

I do thank you for you kind wording in your last reply...
...and I hope I too have been more respectful.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

[ July 21, 2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: NSR ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NSR:
Spacecase:

Thank you for your reply as well.

I too think we're in agreement.... but only partially.

We do agree on ...'Respect(ing) someone else's right to a different opinion or belief.'

We most decidedly disagree on 'truth is(being) relative'...
...although I respect your option to have a different opinion! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Thank you. This is ALL I ask for, and all I try to do myself.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Once 'truth' of right and wrong change over time...
...there is no standard to base any action/behavior to condone/ignore/or punish.<hr /></blockquote>But they have! All the time! What was motive for being burned at the stake several hundred years ago is now accepted scientific truth! What was accepted behavior likewise has changed with time...do we mean to say that this process has now stopped? I doubt it. It never has before in the history of man. THAT is a truth we can either accept or not accept, but that won't change what is. What is will be regardless of whether we understand it and agree with it or not.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The books on "boundaries"... make this clear.
Even the MB concepts become void of meaning...
...when 'truth' becomes relative.<hr /></blockquote>Saying that truth is relative does not mean any and all behavior is acceptable. What is a boundary for you may not be the same boundary for me, or the next person. There are societies where polygamy is accepted, even in our own country. Are we to decide those people's truths for them? And if so, why can they not attempt to decide our truths for us, like the Sept. 11th attackers wished to do?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And to teach our children that truth is 'relative'... is ask for a disaster... in what we can effectively teach them... since they will come to the conclusion (maybe just to themselves)... what mom... dad... said... maybe it's not true anymore!
Truth and Reality Exist<hr /></blockquote>We teach our children OUR truths. And we hope to make those THEIR truths, but this is not always so. They will be what they will be...or do you hold EVERY truth your parents had as your truth?
What we teach them is our truth, and it's value and importance, and we teach them that there are others who think differently, and we attempt to teach them why, and the differences, and the reasons we believe our truths to be the truths they should follow. But we also should teach them respect for the truths of others, even if those are not their truths.
I agree. For me and my beliefs there are some absolute truths, as there are for you and your beliefs. And when I say relative, I only mean relative to each one's beliefs, not necesarily that they change over time, much less through whim.
Even the most solidly and long-held "truths" of physics and the sciences have been proven wrong time and again, the customs of marriage and relationships have also changed, if there is one truth we cannot run away from, it is that change is never-ending.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and...
I believe that you draw the line only on one basis, and that is when another's beliefs will hurt someone else.... becomes a 'relative' nightmare... especially when the effects of how much it hurt someone... can't be seen until mnay years later. You may have guessed (or figured out) that I am Catholic. By your argument... doesn't abortion hurt(kill) the child... even when 97-98% of all abortions... are for the convenience of post-contraception[as per Planned parenthoo]. When more than one person gets hurt (a true social dilema)... on what moral basis do you (or society) (or the courts) (or the law makers) judge the degree of hurt/reparation. Are we going to inundate the courts with a case by case review... or are there standards we go by? Absolute standards... are the cornerstone of both justice and mercy.<hr /></blockquote>I am not posting here pretending to have all the answers; I don't, and many of these specific issues are extremely difficult to determine except on a case by case basis.
We cannot tell when something will be harmful until many years down the road...we raise our chiildren as best we know how, and many years later come to find that we made some mistakes, we see this all the time.
You and I may agree on abortion, we may also agree on homosexual marriage, and we may agree on most of these things. We probably do, and I'm not arguing for those positions. What I AM arguing is that there is always another opinion, another point of view, and we often fail to see it at the time. My point of view about my W's A is very different today than it was on DDay. Why, because on DDay I was emotionally destroyed, and gripped by fear, anger, and hate. Today, nearly two years later, I see things differently, I see the part I played in the deterioration of our marriage, I see many other things too. It doens't change my moral view on infidelity, but it does change my perspective. It changes my anger, fear and hatred into compassion and forgiveness. This example is only to show how we DO change over time.
I happen to be against abortion, but I also have a personal experience of growing up in a very poor Catholic country, where people's devotion to the church made them very anti-abortion, and you have families who can barely feed themselves and must endure terrible hardships grow to 5,6,7 children, each less healthy than the last, with many of them ending up begging in the streets and with no hope, terrible diseases they cannot afford to cure, no education...and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life...
My point is not to argue for or against a particular position on a given issue, but to simply state that truths are relative to the people, culture, religion, circumstances, and subject to the changes that time and other factors bring. And that as such, we should respect the fact that others have different truths, and that even if we do not agree with them, they are that person's truths, and they have the right to defend them just as we may defend ours.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do thank you for you kind wording in your last reply...
...and I hope I too have been more respectful.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR <hr /></blockquote>You have been MOST kind and respectful, as I have tried to be...and that is all I can ask for, and all I try to practice.

[ July 21, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]

Spacecase:

I think terminology is where our difference reside...
...at least in part.

What you have termed by saying...'But they(truths) have (changed)! All the time!'...
...I would refer to a values and facts.

Yes... 'values' do change with societies ebbs and flows. They change with culture and experience. There is a tie into the 'truth' in that truth sets the absolute limits (boundaries).

Burning at the stake... (absolutely wrong)

'Facts' as we know them, define them... also do change.
Scientific fact in particular...
...changes with both new theories... and new discoveries...
...who would have thought a baby in the womb could feel pain during an abortion... but live ultrasound shows it.
'Facts' are not base on truth... but on a very imperfect 'understanding'... and a less than perfect establishment of premises.

The boundaries that are set 'in the legal realm' are in fact an accomodation of a pluralistic society... but the 'truth' does set absoultes...
...otherwise there would be never be any charges of 'murder' 'rape' 'incest' 'fraud'... etc.

We teach our children our 'values'... an if they develope a well formed conscience... they will come to the 'realisation' of truth. They can reject that/those truths...and they can (and have) changed their values...in some cases stepping beyond the 'absolute' boundaries. That's what makes us human (intelligence and free will). That's what collectively allows societies to paractice behaviors... different from ours... even to the point of allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond 'absolute' boundaries.

Our intelligence is finite... very finite. The laws of truth are written in our hearts... but it is a hard place to search... and when we see others living... as they do... (ingnoring those laws)... we are often weak enough to go along with the crowd. Or worse.. when society advocates such behavior... we see the real consequences... and here is where 9-11 really had it's foundation. Because... of a 'small'/fringe society's lack of understanding (for advocating an unspeakable hate)... of 'absolute boundaries'... Hence my concern for the modification of the definition of 'marriage'.

Yes... there will always be other opinions... and it is a good thing they vary...
...but 'truth'... does not change. (do check out the 'link' from my previous reply)

Your point on abortioin is very well taken..."and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life..."...
...the 'truth' of the sancity of life... even though there is suffering... is a valuable point.

People will always... (and especially in the USA) will have the right to express their opinion... the ultimate in 'free will'... (and yes 'free will' is another truth.... (not a fact... not a value... not a boundary... not an opinion... but a 'truth').

Respectfully... and with admiration.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NSR:
[QB]Spacecase:

I think terminology is where our difference reside...
...at least in part.

What you have termed by saying...'But they(truths) have (changed)! All the time!'...
...I would refer to a values and facts.<hr /></blockquote>We may choose to call them "truths" or "values", or even other terms, but my point is simply to show with a historical example that those things which have been called "absolute truths" by the "church" or by "society" at some point in history, and for which non-believers were shunned or worse, have indeed changed over time. So who is to say that what we now refer to as "absolute truth", like so many of the positions that have been stated in this thread and others, will remain absolute truths?

I think part of the problem is that when some people see the words "relative truth" they immediately interpret that as "the truth as interpreted by each individual, on a whim or for convenience", when in fact what I have said is not that at all, and never was. To me, and in the examples I've given, "relative truth" means the truth as seen by different cultures, beliefs, religious organizations, or societies, and over the course of certain time-periods. Not an apologetic for those who may choose to use it for their convenience and change it on a whim.
So for instance we have some people who have responded to me by making comparisons to "physical laws", when in fact I never stated any such thing.

Example: In America, we consider it a sin (or at least very, very bad form) to eat certain animals. Well, in other cultures and countries, they have been eating these animals for a very, very long time. So what is the truth here? that it is a sin, or bad form, or is it ok because another culture sees it that way? What is the truth here? The truth here is relative. Relative to the culture, country, custom, history and timeframe. The same example could be given in reverse for cattle. Here in the US we eat cattle every day and think nothing of it. But ask an Indian what he thinks of that...to the Indians that is an abhorrent idea! So what is the truth? Ours? Theirs? I say neither. The truth is relative to the different cultures, upbringing, custom, etc.
THAT is what I mean by "relative truth".

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes... 'values' do change with societies ebbs and flows. They change with culture and experience. There is a tie into the 'truth' in that truth sets the absolute limits (boundaries).<hr /></blockquote>I think this ties in with the above. Some people consider their values "absolute truths", so I think this is a problem of semantics.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Burning at the stake... (absolutely wrong)<hr /></blockquote>I agree; but it WAS done in the name of "absolute truths", wasn't it? And some of those truths turned out not to be as "absolute" as once thought. My point precisely. Absolute truths change with time, society, culture, religion, etc.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />'Facts' as we know them, define them... also do change.
Scientific fact in particular...
...changes with both new theories... and new discoveries...
...who would have thought a baby in the womb could feel pain during an abortion... but live ultrasound shows it.
'Facts' are not base on truth... but on a very imperfect 'understanding'... and a less than perfect establishment of premises. <hr /></blockquote>This is true as well, and I used the example. But many times, these very imperfect "facts" have been taken as "absolute truths", and people have been condemned for not believing or following them.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The boundaries that are set 'in the legal realm' are in fact an accomodation of a pluralistic society... but the 'truth' does set absoultes...
...otherwise there would be never be any charges of 'murder' 'rape' 'incest' 'fraud'... etc.<hr /></blockquote>Not quite sure I follow your point here...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We teach our children our 'values'... an if they develope a well formed conscience... they will come to the 'realisation' of truth. They can reject that/those truths...and they can (and have) changed their values...in some cases stepping beyond the 'absolute' boundaries. That's what makes us human (intelligence and free will). That's what collectively allows societies to paractice behaviors... different from ours... even to the point of allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond 'absolute' boundaries.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. But I would qualify it by saying "allowing or advocating behaviors that are beyond OUR 'absolute' boundaries" because our boundaries are different from others', our truths are different from others' our values are different from others'...which is why I advocate respect for those other beliefs, because different cultures, religions, peoples, have different beliefs, values, and truths, and even if we do not agree with them, we should respect them and their right to have them. And they should respect ours as well.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Our intelligence is finite... very finite. The laws of truth are written in our hearts... but it is a hard place to search... and when we see others living... as they do... (ingnoring those laws)... we are often weak enough to go along with the crowd. Or worse.. when society advocates such behavior... we see the real consequences... and here is where 9-11 really had it's foundation. Because... of a 'small'/fringe society's lack of understanding (for advocating an unspeakable hate)... of 'absolute boundaries'... Hence my concern for the modification of the definition of 'marriage'.<hr /></blockquote>I cannot disagree. This is a difficult problem, with no clear-cut solutions, and probably necessitates compromises, but that is precisely the point; we cannot legislate morality, truths, behavior of the heart. Because these are things that reside with each one's heart, and although I may believe very strongly that changing the definition of marriage will be a bad thing, I have to recognize that for others keeping it as it IS is a bad thing...and I cannot, in truth, in honesty, in my heart, deny them the right to feel that way nor their right to fight for that with the same vigor that I might fight against it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes... there will always be other opinions... and it is a good thing they vary...
...but 'truth'... does not change. (do check out the 'link' from my previous reply)<hr /></blockquote>I will check it out; I promise!
But I believe my position holds: that different peoples, cultures, societies, and religions have different truths, and I cannot in good faith state categorically that MY truths are the ONLY truths. I am defending everyone's right to say that, so how can I when I know others believe differently?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Your point on abortioin is very well taken..."and one must ask oneself if this was an intended consequence of the belief in life..."...
...the 'truth' of the sancity of life... even though there is suffering... is a valuable point.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, it is an awful quandary! A very hard choice. When there is suffering on that scale, one begins to see that perhaps there has to be another way...and yet we believe so strongly that life is not open to compromise....very hard, very hard...almost impossible to know what is right anymore.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />People will always... (and especially in the USA) will have the right to express their opinion... the ultimate in 'free will'... (and yes 'free will' is another truth.... (not a fact... not a value... not a boundary... not an opinion... but a 'truth').<hr /></blockquote>I think this is at the heart of what I have defended and sustain. If we are to have these freedoms, we must defend everyone else's right to them as well. And that means allowing those who's truths are different from our own, the space to defend them and fight for them, with as much zeal as I may defend and fight for my own.

Thank you, NSR. It is a pleasure to "spar" with another who may have different beliefs, but can find the space to allow me mine, and has the respect to listen to them. This is as it should be.

[ July 22, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Spacecase ]