What if a striaght person wants a civil union though? Having all legal status be granted on civil unions for everyone would be good and if they wanted to be married and define it that way so let them but let legal status not discriminate.
I think that you are onto something. Civil unions are much different from marriage. Asking for a redefinition of the institution of marriage for a minority is not something that should be done. Civil unions on the other hand should be the way to go.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/#SH2bI think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.Show. Don't tell.
See that's not showing. If you want to justify saying someone doesn't know or understand something you're going to have to quote what they said and quote something they specifically contradicted.
Even then you're assuming the person hasn't come to a reasonable conclusion about natural law being bunk. It is possible to be familiar with something and think that its utter dross.
A link is not a substitute for an argument, particularly one that's a thinly veiled insult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flap over gay marriage == perfect example of what happens we when blur the line between church and state.
Fortunately, public opinion is shifting rapidly enough that the whole argument will soon be moot -- thank goodness.
Anything that isn't directly about Obama's statement is a threadjack. The rest of the discussion here is rehash of a dozen other threads with the exact same players saying the exact same things. Yawn. It's like watching reruns of Happy Days, but only the later season ones without Ritchie.
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!
I have found some of your statements to be fairly ignorant. First off, you must define what you mean by "natural law". To me this means that morals can be derived from the laws of nature using reason. However, it is still an abstraction because it is interpreted by humans with different philosophical lenses. For me natural law comes from science coupled with reason and social awareness - not some ancient text. To demonstrate that homosexuality violates natural law, you would have demonstrate how it is an immoral function of human behavior, one...How is outlawing all marriage stupid exactly? Do you want children to have to live through their parents being divorced or fighting all the time? Or one parent that doesn't raise them properly? I think it won't happen because of the right wing would totally attack anyone suggesting such a thing.Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b$&**&&s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b*$%@+%s?As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
I did define natural law in a nut shell in a previous post. Wherever have I quoted or cited the Hebrew or the Christian scriptures in this discussion.
Homosexuality, according to the natural law, goes against the purpose of the sexual act, from the very notion that a man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot naturally bring forth a child. The fact that human beings are complementary in their make up, that is they fit when sex takes place that can bring forth children. Since homosexual sex does not naturally do this, it is against the Natural Law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mixed feeling about accepting your premise, but does that then mean that sex between a married couple past menopause is against natural law?
Simply because you are either unable or unwilling to understand the premise does not make the presenter a "moron" as you put it.
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
Hee hee!
Fair's fair, Paul. You did call him a moron.
The only way this makes sense to me is if your name is also Paul. If it is, well, sorry about the confusion, but I didn't call you a moron.
|
Shalafi,
How about celibacy? is that also against natural law? Should all Catholic Priests be banned? How about sex post-menopause or while otherwise infertile? Again, no procreation can possibly take place, so against natural law. Sex with condom or on the pill? Against natural law according to the definition you've just given. Are you sure that's the one you want to use?
As to the actual topic.
Some people (talking heads) have said that they think Obama's stance will hurt his chances (while others believe it will help). Honestly, I seriously doubt it will make one lick of difference, unless ...
Obama is seen as attacking anyone who doesn't agree with his stance. If Obama, or more likely his supporters, make claims that anyone who holds a different view from his newly stated position is a prejudiced, stupid minded jerk. That could potentially turn of some of his core supporters.
Given the number of states, from widely different areas of the country, that have passed amendments, I'd say that the issue isn't strictly or neatly a democrat vs republican one. Will democrats that don't support same-sex marriage vote for Romney? No, but they might not vote at all or instead vote for the green party or something.
So, I don't think the issue itself will make much of an impact either way, but I think that the Obama camp might want to go with soft gloves. Saying, "I have evolved my thinking" is fine. Going on to say, "Anybody else that hasn't must be an unenlightened neanderthal", might not be the best approach. IMO of course.
Mixed feeling about accepting your premise, but does that then mean that sex between a married couple past menopause is against natural law?
And wouldn't it make using the rhythm method cheating?
I, personally, try to make it a goal to perform one "unnatural" act a day. [Scurries off to Bang Brothers]
...I have found some of your statements to be fairly ignorant. First off, you must define what you mean by "natural law". To me this means that morals can be derived from the laws of nature using reason. However, it is still an abstraction because it is interpreted by humans with different philosophical lenses. For me natural law comes from science coupled with reason and social awareness - not some ancient text. To demonstrate that homosexuality violates natural law, you would have demonstrate how it is an immoral function ofHow is outlawing all marriage stupid exactly? Do you want children to have to live through their parents being divorced or fighting all the time? Or one parent that doesn't raise them properly? I think it won't happen because of the right wing would totally attack anyone suggesting such a thing.Pres Man,
The only time I've ever seen the argument that "It occurs in natue" used is when some moron says "Homosexuality is unnatuarl" or, as Shaalfi puts it, contrary to natural law. That argument is total and utter b$&**&&s. It does not mean that what is in nature is what we should do as people, but it does show that homosexuality is neither a choice, unnatural or contrary to Natural Law. Should we not point out when as argument is total b*$%@+%s?As to Natural Law, find me a species of animal besides humans who get married and we'll talk. Until then, marriage is totally unnatural and against natural law. And that stupid argument is far more accurate than the one it's parodying. Sad, isn't it?
There is a fundamental difference between homosexual inclination and the homosexual act. People might be born homosexual however, they are responsible for their actions or their inactions.
edit ninjaed.I think that you do not understand the Natural Law. Educate yourself on it before you utter ignorant statements.
Under these set of assumption if it does not create children then it is wrong. Does this mean to you post menapausal women having sex is wrong if they cannot have children anymore. OR sterile people having sex is wrong as neither of these produce children.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did define natural law in a nut shell in a previous post. Wherever have I quoted or cited the Hebrew or the Christian scriptures in this discussion.
Homosexuality, according to the natural law, goes against the purpose of the sexual act, from the very notion that a man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot naturally bring forth a child. The fact that human beings are complementary in their make up, that is they fit when sex takes place that can bring forth children. Since homosexual sex does not naturally do this, it is against the Natural Law.
So, uh, blowjobs are against natural law?
Man, natural law sucks.
If sex is between the married people then the sexual action, according to the natural would be acceptable. Please look at an earlier post where I stated that the context needs to be marriage for the support of the couple as well. However, contraception would stop the generative power, which according the natural law would be wrong
Celibacy on the other hand is giving up the goodness of the sexual act (within its context)and according to Catholic theology would be to follow the example of Christ, who according to that same theology was celibate and chaste and whose dedication was to the message of His Father.
That being said, have the clergy and the Church always lived up to that? No. The actions that have led to the abuse of children and teens are wrong and the guilty parties should be punished to the extent that the law allows.
Mixed feeling about accepting your premise, but does that then mean that sex between a married couple past menopause is against natural law?And wouldn't it make using the rhythm method cheating?
I, personally, try to make it a goal to perform one "unnatural" act a day. [Scurries off to Bang Brothers]
Given the context of the discussion occurring, this comment is a bit humorous.
|
|
If sex is between the married people then the sexual action, according to the natural would be acceptable. Please look at an earlier post where I stated that the context needs to be marriage for the support of the couple as well. However, contraception would stop the generative power, which according the natural law would be wrong
Celibacy on the other hand is giving up the goodness of the sexual act (within its context)and according to Catholic theology would be to follow the example of Christ, who according to that same theology was celibate and chaste and whose dedication was to the message of His Father.
That being said, have the clergy and the Church always lived up to that? No. The actions that have led to the abuse of children and teens are wrong and the guilty parties should be punished to the extent that the law allows.
So...why should Catholic (or any other) theology govern legal realities in a country with separation of church and state?
I mean, I'm not Christian, why should that theology be applied to me?
Mixed feeling about accepting your premise, but does that then mean that sex between a married couple past menopause is against natural law?And wouldn't it make using the rhythm method cheating?
I, personally, try to make it a goal to perform one "unnatural" act a day. [Scurries off to Bang Brothers]
What theology have I quoted as a support for the Natural Law, Deadman?
|
|
What theology have I quoted as a support for the Natural Law, Deadman?
You mentioned it above dealing with celibacy. If it's your argument why celibacy is okay, one assumes it's at least involved in the rest. If that assumption is wrong, my apologies.
As for Natural Law, why should that particular concept govern our laws either? I'm honestly curious. I'm not asking you to explain the concept, I get that, I'm asking you to explain why it should be involved in our legislative processes.
Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.
What theology have I quoted as a support for the Natural Law, Deadman?You mentioned it above dealing with celibacy. If it's your argument why celibacy is okay, one assumes it's at least involved in the rest. If that assumption is wrong, my apologies.
As for Natural Law, why should that particular concept govern our laws either? I'm honestly curious. I'm not asking you to explain the concept, I get that, I'm asking you to explain why it should be involved in our legislative processes.
I used Catholic theology to explain a Catholic understanding of celibacy and the reason why Catholic priests are called to be celibate.
Can I answer your question with a question so that we have a common reference point? Why shouldn't it?
If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.
|
There is no WRITTEN Natural Law. Especially when it is same sax does not pertain to JUST human beings. The Natural Law is written in the context of the "Christian" or "Muslim" or Jewish" belief. These three beliefs are the 3 known largest organized religions on the plant. No within the context of "Christianity" you have many sub parts to that like Catholics, Protestant, Baptist, etc.
Yes humans are NOT just the only race to have Homosexual behavior. It has been found in many other species on the planet including ape and amphibian both of which could be argued that humankind descended from
But you want to ban gay marriage for being against natural law, yes? So why can't you adopt the same attitude to gay marriage? Last time I checked, they weren't going to be compulsory.
It is the term marriage being used between homosexual couples that I oppose. Civil Unions would be a better term.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.
There is no WRITTEN Natural Law. Especially when it is same sax does not pertain to JUST human beings. The Natural Law is written in the context of the "Christian" or "Muslim" or Jewish" belief. These three beliefs are the 3 known largest organized religions on the plant. No within the context of "Christianity" you have many sub parts to that like Catholics, Protestant, Baptist, etc.
Yes humans are NOT just the only race to have Homosexual behavior. It has been found in many other species on the planet including ape and amphibian both of which could be argued that humankind descended from
Socrates, Aristole, and Plato began the whole notion of the natural law and I would not accurately be able to call them Christian, Muslim or Jewish.
|
|
I used Catholic theology to explain a Catholic understanding of celibacy and the reason why Catholic priests are called to be celibate.
So is it your contention that only priests should be celibate?
Can I answer your question with a question so that we have a common reference point? Why shouldn't it?
Because that's not the basis of our current legal system, nor the philosophical underpinnings it was created based on. Basing new laws on it would constitute a radical departure from the manner in which legislation has been done previously and basis upon which the country's laws are based.
Since you ask.
Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.
I used Catholic theology to explain a Catholic understanding of celibacy and the reason why Catholic priests are called to be celibate.So is it your contention that only priests should be celibate?
Can I answer your question with a question so that we have a common reference point? Why shouldn't it?Because that's not the basis of our current legal system, nor the philosophical underpinnings it was created based on. Basing new laws on it would constitute a radical departure from the manner in which legislation has been done previously and basis upon which the country's laws are based.
Since you ask.
...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble to the Declaration of Independance
|
|
It is the term marriage being used between homosexual couples that I oppose. Civil Unions would be a better term.
Why? Marriages between people of the same gender have a long history in some cultures. It's not common in the Western European cultural milieu specifically, but it's hardly unknown outside it.
Marriage has no inherent connection to producing children (though it does usually imply caring for them, in fairness).
I used Catholic theology to explain a Catholic understanding of celibacy and the reason why Catholic priests are called to be celibate.So is it your contention that only priests should be celibate?
Can I answer your question with a question so that we have a common reference point? Why shouldn't it?Because that's not the basis of our current legal system, nor the philosophical underpinnings it was created based on. Basing new laws on it would constitute a radical departure from the manner in which legislation has been done previously and basis upon which the country's laws are based.
Since you ask.
British Whighist theory which Jefferson was heavily influenced from (developed by Locke and even underpinning by Hobbes) is part of the core understandings of the legal system in the country.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
Yes. Almost as radical as changing it from buying a virin daughter from a father to join the other wives. or allowing it to be ended by anything other than death. Or allowing the woman some say in whether it happened. These are all radical redefinitions of marriage. They happen when society progresses. Hell, gay used to mean happy but has been 'radically redefined'.
If a civil union is identical to marriage in all bar the word marriage, then the distinction is pointless. If not, civil unions are a lesser status and this is discriminatory. Which option would you like to take?
|
|
If you cannot call it marriage, then you cannot use that term outside of two couples of different genders. You cannot say the Marriage of 2 music styles, or marriage of 2 ideas.
Marriage is NOT term OWNED by any religion, not Catholic, not Muslim, not Jewish, NONE of them can claim this term as it is a term that goes as far back as civilized man and in some civilizations Same Sex marriage was accepted same as same sex partners, or what ever you want to call it.
Marriage is Not owned by any belief it is a word with many meanings that can be used to describe any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism is but one of many.
If you cannot call it marriage, then you cannot use that term outside of two couples of different genders. You cannot say the Marriage of 2 music styles, or marriage of 2 ideas.
Marriage is NOT term OWNED by any religion, not Catholic, not Muslim, not Jewish, NONE of them can claim this term as it is a term that goes as far back as civilized man and in some civilizations Same Sex marriage was accepted same as same sex partners, or what ever you want to call it.
Marriage is Not owned by any belief it is a word with many meanings that can be used to describe any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism is but one of many.
So if it is not owned by anyone why do you care how it is used or not used?
Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?Yes. Almost as radical as changing it from buying a virin daughter from a father to join the other wives. or allowing it to be ended by anything other than death. Or allowing the woman some say in whether it happened. These are all radical redefinitions of marriage. They happen when society progresses. Hell, gay used to mean happy but has been 'radically redefined'.
If a civil union is identical to marriage in all bar the word marriage, then the distinction is pointless. If not, civil unions are a lesser status and this is discriminatory. Which option would you like to take?
Is marriage (gay or straight) a choice in this country?
|
|
...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble to the Declaration of Independance
The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document per se. Certainly not one defining the basis for the new nation, concerned as it was with the basis for defecting from the old.
And perhaps more importantly, they were referring to a very different definition of 'natural law' from the one you put forward.
British Whighist theory which Jefferson was heavily influenced from (developed by Locke and even underpinning by Hobbes) is part of the core understandings of the legal system in the country.
This is true. So? What you're advocating has nothing to do with any of the legal theories espoused by the people in question.
Once again HUMAN BEINGS HOMOSAPIANS are NOT the only species to have sex with the same gender. Thus you cannot say it is NATURAL Law. NATURAL LAW is what MOTHER NATURE dictates not what Mankind dictates
So in nature animals abandon their young or kill off their young if they are sick. Is this a behavior that humanity should embrace because it happens in nature? Lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs so that their own babies can be born. Should people do this as well?
...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble to the Declaration of Independance
The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document per se. Certainly not one defining the basis for the new nation, concerned as it was with the basis for defecting from the old.
And perhaps more importantly, they were referring to a very different definition of 'natural law' from the one you put forward.
British Whighist theory which Jefferson was heavily influenced from (developed by Locke and even underpinning by Hobbes) is part of the core understandings of the legal system in the country.This is true. So? What you're advocating has nothing to do with any of the legal theories espoused by the people in question.
What exactly are the legal theories that are being used to justify gay marriage?
|
|
Is marriage (gay or straight) a choice in this country?Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?Yes. Almost as radical as changing it from buying a virin daughter from a father to join the other wives. or allowing it to be ended by anything other than death. Or allowing the woman some say in whether it happened. These are all radical redefinitions of marriage. They happen when society progresses. Hell, gay used to mean happy but has been 'radically redefined'.
If a civil union is identical to marriage in all bar the word marriage, then the distinction is pointless. If not, civil unions are a lesser status and this is discriminatory. Which option would you like to take?
I do not understand the question. I do not remember a law forcing everyone in the US to get married, so yes, it does seem to be a choice.
|
|
So in nature animals abandon their young or kill off their young if they are sick. Is this a behavior that humanity should embrace because it happens in nature? Lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs so that their own babies can be born. Should people do this as well?
Now you're being inconsistent. You're the one arguing that people should only do what nature impels them to. Nature does indeed favor the actions you suggest, and so by your argument people should indeed engage in that behavior...which is a very good reason to ignore natural law entirely as applied to the behavior of human beings.
Or to put it another way: If we're going to behave unnaturally by withstanding the temptations of infanticide, why should we care about 'natural law' at all?
I do not understand the question. I do not remember a law forcing everyone in the US to get married, so yes, it does seem to be a choice.Is marriage (gay or straight) a choice in this country?Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?Yes. Almost as radical as changing it from buying a virin daughter from a father to join the other wives. or allowing it to be ended by anything other than death. Or allowing the woman some say in whether it happened. These are all radical redefinitions of marriage. They happen when society progresses. Hell, gay used to mean happy but has been 'radically redefined'.
If a civil union is identical to marriage in all bar the word marriage, then the distinction is pointless. If not, civil unions are a lesser status and this is discriminatory. Which option would you like to take?
So as a choice am I forced to agree with it simply because someone made it?