God bless Texas

[mattskramer]

JUst to tack on

The job of govt is not to grant rights, but to insure rights given to us by our creator (sorry, but thats what the writers of the Constitution believed and stated) i.e. God.

Were the writers of the Constitution ever wrong in anything that they ever believed or stated?

It is govt's purview to facilitate a healthy society.

If this is true, shouldn't government outlaw cigarettes smoking and other unhealthy behavior?

Yes. I'm still around. Though I have commitments and interests that take up much of my time, once in a while I might drop in and post something.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

ANYTHING, in my opinion, including legal unions, that encourages any homosexual behavior, ought not be sanctioned by the Govt. It encourages unhealthy enviorments for people and kids, and is detrimental to a healthy society.

Suppose I agreed that marriage was, by definition, a holy union between man and woman, under the eyes of God. Suppose I then suggested that athiests could not provide a healthy environment for kids since the children will invariably grow up to be athiests, will therefore lead godless lives, be a detriment to a healthy society, and end up going to hell. Given my beliefs, I suggest that athiest men and woman should not be allowed to marry, nor should the government sanction such relationships with legal unions. The question is: could you come up with an argument against me? In other words, can you defend the current practice of allowing athiest men and women to marry? Technically speaking, shouldn't the word "marriage" be reserved only for a union between a religious man and a religious woman? Shouldn't the government always do what is best for society, even if it means making the minority unhappy?

 

[musicman]

Suppose I agreed that marriage was, by definition, a holy union between man and woman, under the eyes of God. Suppose I then suggested that athiests could not provide a healthy environment for kids since the children will invariably grow up to be athiests, will therefore lead godless lives, be a detriment to a healthy society, and end up going to hell. Given my beliefs, I suggest that athiest men and woman should not be allowed to marry, nor should the government sanction such relationships with legal unions. The question is: could you come up with an argument against me? In other words, can you defend the current practice of allowing athiest men and women to marry? Technically speaking, shouldn't the word "marriage" be reserved only for a union between a religious man and a religious woman? Shouldn't the government always do what is best for society, even if it means making the minority unhappy?

No good, Horhay. That would entail government interference in the matter of religion. Freedom from religious persecution is one of this nation's reasons for being. Within the framework of civilized society, you and I are free to practice any religion we wish - or no religion at all - without suffering any penalty from government.

You really ought to try and get a handle on this whole America thing, man. It's about self-determination. Central government - according to the law of our land, has a few, very specific powers. Beyond these, the say-so over our everyday lives devolves to the state, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. That, in a nutshell, is the American Ideal.

So, if you think that homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, and the banishment of every vestige of Christianity from the public arena are such great ideas - convince the American people. It's their call, by rights. Put it to a vote!

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

You really ought to try and get a handle on this whole America thing, man. It's about self-determination. Central government - according to the law of our land, has a few, very specific powers. Beyond these, the say-so over our everyday lives devolves to the state, the community, and - ultimately - to the individual. That, in a nutshell, is the American Ideal.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. The government, as it stands today, has the power to marry an athiest man and woman. I would suggest that the government only be able to perform legal unions since the word "marriage" can only be used for holy matrimony. What I'm asking is: why have 2 sets of rules at all? If it is so offensive that the word "marriage" be used to describe a union between a man and a man, why does it not seem to be offensive that the word "marriage" be used to describe unholy matrimony between a man and a woman? It sounds to me like, right now, the government is meddling in religion by handing out marriage licenses to athiest men and women.

 

[musicman]

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. The government, as it stands today, has the power to marry an athiest man and woman. I would suggest that the government only be able to perform legal unions since the word "marriage" can only be used for holy matrimony. What I'm asking is: why have 2 sets of rules at all? If it is so offensive that the word "marriage" be used to describe a union between a man and a man, why does it not seem to be offensive that the word "marriage" be used to describe unholy matrimony between a man and a woman? It sounds to me like, right now, the government is meddling in religion by handing out marriage licenses to athiest men and women.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that government only sanctions holy unions. This is false. My second marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace, and holiness never enered into it.

Remember, now, that - when the American Ideal is operating as designed - the terms "government" and "society" are synonymous. Society governs itself. We have determined that the marriage of a man and a woman is beneficial to society. It is incumbent upon homosexuals to convince society that the pairing of same-sex couples is likewise so. This needs to be done at the ballot box.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that government only sanctions holy unions. This is false. My second marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace, and holiness never enered into it.

I believe that I am well aware of what the US government currently sanctions. My question (and it was a question, not an ascertion) is:
1. Given that the definition of the word "marriage" is a holy union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God.
2. Given that the main objection surrounding homosexual union is the use of the word "marriage" since gays can obviously never be married under God.
Question: Why is there no objection over the use of the word "marriage" for the union of an athiest man and an athiest woman? In other words, how dare you use the word "marriage" to describe your second union since holiness never entered into it!

We have determined that the marriage of a man and a woman is beneficial to society. It is incumbent upon homosexuals to convince society that the pairing of same-sex couples is likewise so.

But homosexuals have already managed to do this! I've read many quotes from many people, both on this board and off, that say they have little or no objection to the pairing of same-sex couples as long as they don't besmirch the holy definition of the word "marriage". Why is it wrong for gays to use the word "marriage" to describe their union but it is okay for athiests?

 

[Avatar4321]

But homosexuals have already managed to do this! I've read many quotes from many people, both on this board and off, that say they have little or no objection to the pairing of same-sex couples as long as they don't besmirch the holy definition of the word "marriage". Why is it wrong for gays to use the word "marriage" to describe their union but it is okay for athiests?

They havent convinced me. I don't know about anyone else but I am opposed to any sort of homosexual union. Not because I am intolerant or hate homosexuals. Quite the opposite. I oppose it because neither men or women will ever find true and lasting happiness without each other. You can try to imitate the marriage relationship, but in the end you are going to be miserable. Some people just dont realize that misery is the natural consequence of some actions.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

They havent convinced me. I don't know about anyone else but I am opposed to any sort of homosexual union. Not because I am intolerant or hate homosexuals. Quite the opposite. I oppose it because neither men or women will ever find true and lasting happiness without each other. You can try to imitate the marriage relationship, but in the end you are going to be miserable. Some people just dont realize that misery is the natural consequence of some actions.

It will be very interesting to compare the divorce rates of gay couples compared to the divorce rate of straight couples here in Canada.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

They havent convinced me. I don't know about anyone else but I am opposed to any sort of homosexual union. Not because I am intolerant or hate homosexuals. Quite the opposite. I oppose it because neither men or women will ever find true and lasting happiness without each other. You can try to imitate the marriage relationship, but in the end you are going to be miserable. Some people just dont realize that misery is the natural consequence of some actions.

Using that logic, we should outlaw all sorts of things that make us miserable.

 

[musicman]

Horhay:

I understand the point you're trying to make, and it might carry some weight if the religiosity of a marriage were the determining factor in its legality. Clearly, though, this is not the case. Moreover, it is not the pivotal issue in the present debate.

Marriage is gender-specific; society has deemed such to be in its interests. Social engineers sympathetic to a radical agenda would like to change the way we live and look at things, in favor of what they perceive as a more enlightened view. However - you'll recall - when the American Ideal is functioning as designed, society = "the government".

Radical social engineers don't hold out much hope for educating the unenlightened masses. Besides, why go through that tedium when you can circumvent the American Ideal entirely, and ram your agenda through the courts? Put enough of your fellow elitists on the bench, and you can pervert the Constitution to mean anything you want it to mean.

We need to keep our eye on the ball, Horhay. In matters such as homosexual marriage, abortion, religious displays, etc. - we tend to get ourselves bogged down in minutae and interpretations, when, in fact, the central question is quite simple:

Whose call is it?