Double Exposure, Inc.
  • September 24, 2018, 07:12:30 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Love Finally Wins Over Hate  (Read 10843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kate Beaman-Martinez

  • Executive Assistant
  • Administrator
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • Double Exposure, Inc.
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2009, 08:03:16 AM »

Thank you Ted.

So Mark, with that statement, why not take marriage COMPLETELY off the table for EVERYONE and call them civil unions? Nobody gets to be married and we all get civil unions. Does that sound like a good plan?
Logged
--
Kate Beaman-Martinez
Executive Assistant

Assistant System GM
GMAvie's Walking, Talking Filing Cabinet

Double Exposure, Inc.
"Gaming the way it was Meant to Be!"

<img src="http://www.drhorrible.com/images/banners/banner.gif" border="0">

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2009, 08:37:50 AM »

   As far as what the Government calls them, I am not too worried. They can call them whatever. The benefits would be exactly the same in the eyes of the law. This country was founded primarily by Christians. When they put the legal institution of marriage into the books, from the beginning it was modeled after the European model, which was based on biblical principals. They call a union between a man and a woman by the Christian name. They never dreamed that just over 200 years later someone would want to change it to include homosexual unions. Had they known that, I am sure they would have fashioned it with some other name besides one that has such religious significance. The idea of seperation of church and state does not occur anywhere in our constitution. The only thing that is in the constitution is a provision barring government from restricting religion, big difference.
    You say they are not equal however, but tell me what the difference would be if all the same benefits are included in the statute? If it were crafted to include every legal benefit that marriage has, I do not understand why this is such a big deal. I know emotions can get heated on this topic. I am in no way trying to say that the union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman should be treated in any way less than that of a man and a woman. I simply do not want it to be called marriage. Equality is what you are after, is it not. If all but the term used is exactly the same, why would it be not equal? As far as the law would be concerned it would be identical no matter what it is called.
Logged

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 497
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2009, 10:08:36 AM »

And fighting against laws sending this message indicates a support of those biases.

Or the understanding that someone who is murdered because of (insert race or etc here) is no more or less dead, their loved ones no more or less devastated, than someone who is murdered simply because they were a target of opportunity.
As well as saying that killing someone from group A is a more serious crime and gets a more serious penalty than murdering someone from group B, is the very same discrimination you are trying to fight, but pointed in the other direction. Discrimination of any sort should be fought every step of the way. But turning it around to point at someone else is not fighting it, it is feeding it.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2009, 09:30:40 AM »

Or the understanding that someone who is murdered because of (insert race or etc here) is no more or less dead, their loved ones no more or less devastated, than someone who is murdered simply because they were a target of opportunity.

Actually, this is the point - the groups to which those targetted belong ARE more negatively affected than in other cases. Duh. A primary motivation behind pushing for these laws.

As well as saying that killing someone from group A is a more serious crime and gets a more serious penalty than murdering someone from group B, is the very same discrimination you are trying to fight, but pointed in the other direction. Discrimination of any sort should be fought every step of the way. But turning it around to point at someone else is not fighting it, it is feeding it.

If any of the legislation ACTUALLY differentiated based on membership in one group or another, this MIGHT be a relevant point. WTF is it with you people? Do you not read?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2009, 10:40:26 AM »

This country was founded primarily by Christians. When they put the legal institution of marriage into the books, from the beginning it was modeled after the European model, which was based on biblical principals. They call a union between a man and a woman by the Christian name.


By the English name, you mean? Being predominantly English-speaking people? The word in English goes back to the word in French, which goes back to the word in Latin, which goes back... well, goes back. Etymology is tricky, especially when you start going back a few thousand years.

Yes, it's true, by the time of the European colonization of the Americas, the major powers were more or less Christian, but I'd say it's highly innaccurate to say that marriage in Europe or in the early colonies that became what is now the USA were based particularly on any information detailed in the Bible. It wasn't until the time of the Reformation that formal recognition of marriages by the Catholic Church was required (though churches often kept marriage registries prior to this time), and IIRC Protestants popularized the dual state/church sanction of marriages. Civil marriage, fully separate from religious sanction, is even newer than that.

But for sake of argument, I'll grant you that most of the people writing the local and state laws governing marriages (there being little in the way of federal legislation to this effect, and in fact I think DOMA may have been the first... oh delicious hypocrisy, abusive and overreaching federal legislation to limit states rights IN THE NAME OF PRESERVING THEM), registration of marriages, and any legal obligations or protections based on same, were at least nominally Christian and that the general understanding of what constituted a proper legal marriage at the time in which many of those laws were written was that marriage would be between a single man and woman.

However, the fact is that in the history of the world, the concept of marriage has not been a static or consistent thing, but many types of unions between persons (of varying gender and number) have been recognized as legitimate over time. Why must the mid-1500s Christian-influenced western European definition and custom of marriage remain the one true way for all time? And why must those who want that to be true, be given ownership of a particular word or concept?

They never dreamed that just over 200 years later someone would want to change it to include homosexual unions.


They probably never imagined that someone would want to extend it to include the marriage practices of Jews and Quakers, either! It's amazing how these blind and unimaginative fools are to be thought of as caught so off-guard by the evolution and expansion of civil liberty over time, and yet simultaneously ALSO remarkably prescient about developments in military tactics and weaponry (q.v. arguments relevant to the 2nd amendment).

Had they known that, I am sure they would have fashioned it with some other name besides one that has such religious significance.

Very likely they would have created laws intended to specifically bar the practice, just as laws against miscegeny and incest and bigamy were written.

The idea of seperation of church and state does not occur anywhere in our constitution. The only thing that is in the constitution is a provision barring government from restricting religion, big difference.

The 'only thing'? The only thing is this: "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That right there is the basis in law for the doctrine of church/state separation, and it's held up pretty well, I think.

I simply do not want it to be called marriage.

And I don't want Intelligent Design to be called a scientific theory. Why do IDers push so hard have it recognized as science, rather than religious theory? Is there some important, yet hard to define difference between the two that makes the science label more attractive? Why must IDers persist in having their views about science be given the same name as traditional science?

Quote
Equality is what you are after, is it not. If all but the term used is exactly the same, why would it be not equal? As far as the law would be concerned it would be identical no matter what it is called.

It doesn't take an Antonio Smith to tell you that there's a non-trivial connotative value to the term marriage, and this value would not associate directly to whatever alternative term were used. That alone makes them inherently unequal - your hypothetical is ridiculous on its face.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2009, 12:48:27 PM »

And why must those who want that to be true, be given ownership of a particular word or concept?
When a country is founded to respect religion, it should not be dismissed when you want to change what is an essential part of a faith. Marriage is one of the sacred institutions of the church. To change it without changing the term is to cheapen it. If you change it for this, when do you stop? Do we next allow Bigamy, Incest, Men/Boy relationships, Animal/Human relationships? No, the term is specific to Man/Woman relationships. Under the eyes of the law anything the state wants to give the same legal benefits to is their Perogative, but marriage needs to stay as it is.
They probably never imagined that someone would want to extend it to include the marriage practices of Jews and Quakers, either! It's amazing how these blind and unimaginative fools are to be thought of as caught so off-guard by the evolution and expansion of civil liberty over time, and yet simultaneously ALSO remarkably prescient about developments in military tactics and weaponry (q.v. arguments relevant to the 2nd amendment).
Those religions were accounted for in the constitution. They recieve the same benefits as a married couple in the Christian religion, the ceremony used to unite people are a matter of the church and not relevent to the state. The definition of what constitutes a marriage is. Civil Unions are a way to give the same benefits to homosexual union without destroying the religious conotations of marriage. One minute you argue that the term is important, while poo-pooing that it is valuable to religions. Religious freedoms are the very bedrock this country was funded for. As far as military prescience, that has evolved alot, however the basics are still the same. The public has a right to hold it's government accountable and rise up if it gets out of control. This was left simple and somewhat unspecific for a reason.
Very likely they would have created laws intended to specifically bar the practice, just as laws against miscegeny and incest and bigamy were written.
This probably would have, and then when the created the legal benefits for the benefit of marriage it would have been clear that if homosexual unions were to have the same benefits, they would have to be called something other than marriage. Hopefully an amendment will be added to rectify this oversite.
The 'only thing'? The only thing is this: "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That right there is the basis in law for the doctrine of church/state separation, and it's held up pretty well, I think.
Actually, the current interpretation we have of this clause is fairly recent, until 1947, they did not have anywhere near the definition of this that they have today. It certainly was never intended that religion be irrelevant to government when making policy. The establishment clause is as much to protect religion from Government as vice versa. We have to guard against what Justice Douglas in 1952 Zorach vs Clauson refered to as "Callous Indifference to religion."
And I don't want Intelligent Design to be called a scientific theory. Why do IDers push so hard have it recognized as science, rather than religious theory? Is there some important, yet hard to define difference between the two that makes the science label more attractive? Why must IDers persist in having their views about science be given the same name as traditional science?
The main reason it is something we fight to have recognised as being as viable or moreso than evolution is so indoctrinatation does not occur in schools as it does now. Many schools teach evolution as if it were a fact, and it is far from it. Evolution is far from "traditional science." It is a highly flawed theory that takes as much faith as ID does. In fact, Creationism is a far more "traditional" theory since it was taught and believed to be fact far longer than elolution.
It doesn't take an Antonio Smith to tell you that there's a non-trivial connotative value to the term marriage, and this value would not associate directly to whatever alternative term were used. That alone makes them inherently unequal - your hypothetical is ridiculous on its face.
And where does the importance of this term come from? Legally it would have the exact same significance. The exact same benefits, and over time it would become just as accepted. Instead of fighting so hard to fit a round peg into a a squre hole and trying to convince everyone that it is right to do so, just make a round hole. There is plenty of room on the board for a round hole. And therewould certainly be alot less fighting over it. Put the efforts into raising the awareness of the Civil Union and perhaps even many non religious couples will want to use that label instead of marriage as well. If the homosexual community continues to push this issue, they will eventually force the passage of a marriage amendment which will permanently end this issue and make it far harder to pass civil union legislation. At this time it would be a good comprimise for both sides and would swiftly gain acceptance, instead of raising the tensions as it is now. One minute you argue that the term should not be that important to religions, while saying it is important to homosexuals. This is basically arguing both sides or worse, saying that the feelings of homosexuals are somehow more important than those of the religious community. Civil Unions are the best comprimise on both sides.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 01:12:38 PM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2009, 01:37:03 PM »

I know this was targetted towards Horace's post but I could not ignore it since it addresses things I said in my post before it.
Actually, this is the point - the groups to which those targetted belong ARE more negatively affected than in other cases. Duh. A primary motivation behind pushing for these laws.
I disagree. Having a loved one killed because some idiot just felt like it can be very debilitating. Knowing that there are people that are that deranged that the just kill indiscriminately is in some ways worse than knowing why they did it. It starts to harbor a general distrust in all you meet, especially if they seem a bit off to you. Plus the victim is just as dead. Would someone who killed someone because they looked just like an old relative they hated be a hate crime? That person if let free has as great a chance to kill again as the person who killed because they hate a race. Both should get the same punishment.
If any of the legislation ACTUALLY differentiated based on membership in one group or another, this MIGHT be a relevant point. WTF is it with you people? Do you not read?
And you refuse to see the point we are making, WTF don't you allow something to ACTUALLY get through your skull? It does not matter that you mention a specific hatred, if the determination is based on race , religion, or some other victim group, even if not specifically named, it is still discrimination. Therefore you are giving that person or group of individuals a specific advantage within the legal system. You are so blinded to the fact that it does not name a specific group that you lose the overall picture. By necessity, you have to define what victim group they belong to during the trial and then rule that only because they were a member of that group were they attacked or persecuted in some way. This leads to unfair treatment in a court of law. It is the main reason for Hate Crime Legislation.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2009, 01:41:36 PM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 497
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2009, 08:11:09 PM »

Actually, this is the point - the groups to which those targetted belong ARE more negatively affected than in other cases. Duh. A primary motivation behind pushing for these laws.

So according to you, parents/family/etc of a straight person wont be just as devastated when their child is murdered, as the parents/family/etc of a gay person? Thats just flat out rediculous to the point that I suspect you're just trying to play devils advocate and stir things up.
No. Being part of a certain group does not make your death any more or less devastating.

If any of the legislation ACTUALLY differentiated based on membership in one group or another, this MIGHT be a relevant point. WTF is it with you people? Do you not read?

Define "hate crime legislation".
Explain why someone who murders a person for being gay is subject to the possibility of "enhanced penalties" compared to someone who commits the exact same crime against a random victim?

It probably wont surprise anyone that I am for very harsh punishment for those who commit crimes. But someone who kills a random victim should get no less of a penalty than someone who murders because their victim is/is percieved as being gay, minority or any other group.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2009, 07:51:19 AM »

It probably wont surprise anyone that I am for very harsh punishment for those who commit crimes. But someone who kills a random victim should get no less of a penalty than someone who murders because their victim is/is percieved as being gay, minority or any other group.
Actually, I disagree with this to a point. If the person who commits the crime is more likely to commit the crime again because it can be shown he/she has a hatred towards a specific group, they should get a stiffer penalty, however, we do not need a seperate law to accomplish this. There is usually a range given in the sentancing phase, like 10-20 years. If the person is shown to have a proclivity towards commiting the crime repeatedly such as by having a hatred towards a group of people, he/she should get either the maximum or close to it. If they have this penchant for attacking a specific group, most likely they are showing little remorse and are likely to do it again. That person should have a longer sentance than say someone who only did it once and is so devastated by it that they are unlikely to commit the same or similar crimes again in the future.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2009, 11:14:08 AM »

Having a loved one killed because some idiot just felt like it can be very debilitating. Knowing that there are people that are that deranged that the just kill indiscriminately is in some ways worse than knowing why they did it.

Without getting all oppression olympics here, the fact is that bias crimes tend to have a more negative impact on the targeted groups than crimes not so motivated. Indiscriminate killing scares everyone - killings in a target group scare just that group, and this sort of terrorism is deserving of additional punishment, especially in cases where it is the specific intent of the criminal to cause such fear.

It starts to harbor a general distrust in all you meet, especially if they seem a bit off to you. Plus the victim is just as dead. Would someone who killed someone because they looked just like an old relative they hated be a hate crime?


That'd depend on the laws, wouldn't it? I don't really like the term 'hate crime' because it's a bit of misnomer and people often don't understand the intent, but hate is a powerful word and plays well in the media so that's what gets used. I suppose you could call your hypothetical a sort of hate crime but not in the same sense it is meant with respect to these laws.

Quote
And you refuse to see the point we are making, WTF don't you allow something to ACTUALLY get through your skull?

Because your point is stupid, irrelevant, and based on your ignorance of the facts. Which you do not understand, of course, which makes your point SEEM meaningful to you, but of course it isn't, which I hope you have occasion to realize eventually.

It does not matter that you mention a specific hatred, if the determination is based on race , religion, or some other victim group, even if not specifically named, it is still discrimination. Therefore you are giving that person or group of individuals a specific advantage within the legal system. You are so blinded to the fact that it does not name a specific group that you lose the overall picture. By necessity, you have to define what victim group they belong to during the trial and then rule that only because they were a member of that group were they attacked or persecuted in some way. This leads to unfair treatment in a court of law. It is the main reason for Hate Crime Legislation.

I'm not sure where you get this idea from, but you're mistaken. With specific respect to the law in question, it is not the victim's membership in a minority/disadvantaged demographic that triggers the added punishment, it is targeting on the basis of membership or perceived membership in any particular protected class. Someone who kills men because they are men would be just as guilty under the hate crimes law as one who targets women for being women, for instance. That may not be true of all hate crimes legislation, and indeed it may not be the reason for pushing for hate crimes laws, but the practical effect is that ALL groups are provided equal protection under these laws, whether those groups are traditionally underprivileged or not.

The laws do NOT privilege or protect one group over another, and I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2009, 11:24:31 AM »

So according to you, parents/family/etc of a straight person wont be just as devastated when their child is murdered, as the parents/family/etc of a gay person?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that bias motivated crimes tend to have a greater negative impact on the targeted group as whole than do crimes of other types. So sure, the families and such may be equally devastated, but in cases of bias crimes the ENTIRE GROUP, even those at significant remove from the victim, is negatively impacted, and in other more random/opportunistic crimes this is not the case. The terroristic effect of the bias crimes is the reason for enhanced penalties.

Define "hate crime legislation".

Well, for general purposes of this discussion, it was the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

In general, I'd define it as legislation providing for additional funding for law enforcement training and support to help deter, as well as possibly providing for new criminal or civil penalties for those guilty of, bias motivated crimes. That is, crimes committed wholly or partly due to the victims' membership in a particular demographic category. Of course, traditionally underprivileged groups will be more negatively impacted than traditionally more privileged groups, but there doesn't seem to be overriding state interest in excluding members of so-called 'majority' groups from the added protections provided by such laws, so they get covered too.

Quote
Explain why someone who murders a person for being gay is subject to the possibility of "enhanced penalties" compared to someone who commits the exact same crime against a random victim?

Because the harm done to society is greater in the latter case.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2009, 01:00:15 PM »

When a country is founded to respect religion, it should not be dismissed when you want to change what is an essential part of a faith.

The US was not a nation founded to respect a specific religion. It was a nation founded predominantly by members of a specific religion, and inasmuch as concepts derived specifically from Christian teachings influenced English common law, so in turn did these ultimately impact US law and legal/philosophical thinking.

As the entire rest of this section is predicated on this statement, it is irrelevant to the case of the US, but I'll address it anyway because I like to fight. ;p

Marriage is one of the sacred institutions of the church. To change it without changing the term is to cheapen it.

The Christian church did not invent marriage. Marriage is a custom predating recorded history, exists in some form across all human societies. Even the Latin precursors to the modern english word predate the notion of Christ! What the church does is proscribe a particular formalizing ceremony and specific oaths to be taken and held to by those so united, and to place certain prohibitions on who may be so joined. These specifics are not static and have changed over time in nearly every branch of Christianity, some more significantly than others.

To demand that one group be granted unquestioned authority over such a common and variable human custom is incredibly...

If you change it for this, when do you stop? Do we next allow Bigamy, Incest, Men/Boy relationships, Animal/Human relationships?

Yes, because opening up marriage to a wider array of consenting adults is totally equivalent to legitimizing all other taboo relationships evar. Or, you know, not at all.

Quote
No, the term is specific to Man/Woman relationships.

Due to custom, however, not due to any driving necessity.

Quote
Under the eyes of the law anything the state wants to give the same legal benefits to is their Perogative, but marriage needs to stay as it is.

Why? I still don't have a good understanding of why the term 'marriage' must never be applied to certain groups, even when they are otherwise joined in an identical legal relationship.

Quote
Those religions were accounted for in the constitution. They recieve the same benefits as a married couple in the Christian religion, the ceremony used to unite people are a matter of the church and not relevent to the state. The definition of what constitutes a marriage is.

Indeed, all religions were accounted for in the first amendment. Indeed, religious groups may perform marriage ceremonies for ANYONE, irrespective of the state. The state defines only which unions it will be recognized under law. Therefore the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage is quite relevant to the state, I quite agree. I am glad to see we at least agree on some of the core facts, for once.

Quote
Civil Unions are a way to give the same benefits to homosexual union without destroying the religious conotations of marriage.

Marriage is ALREADY a concept that exists without religious connotation - civil marriages (marriages fully certified by the state irrespective of any religious involvement or recognition) have been increasingly popular in the West since at least the 19th century. You can already be married by a justice of the peace, even if you belong to a religion that specific prohibits and actively condemns the marriage you are entering into!

Civil marriage, the recording and recognition there of, and definition there of, is a function of the state, and all citizens (indeed, all persons) should be granted equal privileges under the law.

Quote
One minute you argue that the term is important, while poo-pooing that it is valuable to religions.

Not at all. I recognize the value to and interest of certain religious groups to gain or retain control over this concept. I just absolutely reject the legitimacy of their claims or the propriety of making them.

Quote
Religious freedoms are the very bedrock this country was funded for.

Civil liberties were the very bedrock this country was founded for, with religious freedom a core concern for many at that time. In fact, property rights and rights to self-determination were equally important. It doesn't do to either under OR overstate the importance of the pursuit of religious freedoms. Even less so given the extreme intolerance towards various minority religious groups by those in power throughout our country's history.

Quote
As far as military prescience, that has evolved alot, however the basics are still the same. The public has a right to hold it's government accountable and rise up if it gets out of control. This was left simple and somewhat unspecific for a reason.

As were many provisions of the constitution. The point being, to make the concurrent arguments of 'they could never have foreseen expanded marriage rights' and 'surely they foresaw technological advancements in weaponry and the military' is rather disingenuous. I do not think you have made both of these arguments yourself, but there are many who make both claims, and I was taking a well-deserved pot shot at those people.

Quote
This probably would have, and then when the created the legal benefits for the benefit of marriage it would have been clear that if homosexual unions were to have the same benefits, they would have to be called something other than marriage.

Come now, if the issue were being seriously considered at the time of the founding, it would have been specifically prohibited, though probably only in state law. Imagine the ammunition the anti-federalists would have held if the Constitution was used to address marriage customs!

Quote
Hopefully an amendment will be added to rectify this oversite.

Nothing like codifying oppression into law to make everyone's day, right?

Quote
Actually, the current interpretation we have of this clause is fairly recent, until 1947, they did not have anywhere near the definition of this that they have today.

What, Everson? Everson did not reflect a sweeping change in judicial interpretation of the establishment clause. Indeed, the court was unanimous in its interpretation of the clause, it just differed on the application of that understanding to the case at hand. It's worth noting that the Everson decision upheld the lower court and appelate rulings AGAINST the position that a law that predominantly benefits religious institutions need necessarily be construed as violating the separation principle.

Quote
It certainly was never intended that religion be irrelevant to government when making policy. The establishment clause is as much to protect religion from Government as vice versa.

Was this in dispute? Because I don't recall making statements to the contrary. However, pay careful attention to your wording - AS MUCH. The establishment and free exercise clauses serve to protect equally the state and the church from the undue influence or involvement of the other.

Quote
We have to guard against what Justice Douglas in 1952 Zorach vs Clauson refered to as "Callous Indifference to religion."

I think if you investigate the matter further you will come to understand that Douglas was not ultimately in favor of the ideas you are using his words to support. However, the Zorach decision is not particularly radical - it was a safe, if not necessarily philosophically rigorous, call to make. The Zorach decision is also not out of line with the Everson decision, though I suppose it does potentially conflict with the strictist interpretation of separation.

Quote
The main reason it is something we fight to have recognised as being as viable or moreso than evolution is so indoctrinatation does not occur in schools as it does now. Many schools teach evolution as if it were a fact, and it is far from it. Evolution is far from "traditional science." It is a highly flawed theory that takes as much faith as ID does. In fact, Creationism is a far more "traditional" theory since it was taught and believed to be fact far longer than elolution.

Creationism is an older idea, quite true, but as it is in no way scientific, it is not a traditionally scientific theory, so you're conflating what I said with something else. Your continued rejection of reality in favor of your own fantasy scenarios is... unfortunate, but I think rehashing the ID thing in this thread is probably counterproductive to the discussion at hand. The point being - you have a minority viewpoint being expressed and challenging a more established viewpoint in both cases, so if your argument holds that preference must be given to tradition definitions, then ID must cease its claims on science, no?

Quote
And where does the importance of this term come from? Legally it would have the exact same significance. The exact same benefits, and over time it would become just as accepted. Instead of fighting so hard to fit a round peg into a a squre hole and trying to convince everyone that it is right to do so, just make a round hole.

Umm... yeah, that's a 'square peg through a round hole', and REASON for this, as I hope you'll realize upon reflection, is that a 'round peg through a square hole' does not require any particular effort. The round peg slips easily into/through the square hole, because the dimensions of the square hole exceed those of the peg. Granted, if the hole is meant to contain the peg rather than allow its passage, and is therefore more of a slot, then round peg will of course fit rather loosely and be more prone to falling out, but we're getting a beyond the intent of the metaphor there.

Marriage is the term most broadly used to represent the joining of two persons for the purpose of share agency, joint property, establishing households or families, and simplify the matter of responsibility for children. These social connotations are more important and valuable, and also currently more broadly recognized, than the religious connotations of the term, especially with respect to civil marriage. Their value in this regard is, in and of itself, enough to demonstrate fundamental inequity.

Marriage is also a legal institution maintained for this purpose. It is also far simpler and significantly more efficient to expand the rules for who may be married than to establish separate concurrent institutions.

Quote
One minute you argue that the term should not be that important to religions, while saying it is important to homosexuals. This is basically arguing both sides or worse, saying that the feelings of homosexuals are somehow more important than those of the religious community.

You misunderstand my argument. I say that the religious connotations are not as important as the general social connotations, and that the social connotations are significant enough to create inequity between those allowed to use the term and those not.

Besides which, your statement presupposes that the entire 'religious community' opposes marriage equality, which is not true. Many religious peoples and religious institutions support equality.

Quote
If the homosexual community continues to push this issue, they will eventually force the passage of a marriage amendment which will permanently end this issue and make it far harder to pass civil union legislation.

"We're going to beat you. Resist, and we'll beat you worse." We value religion as a social good WHY again, exactly?

Quote
At this time it would be a good comprimise for both sides and would swiftly gain acceptance, instead of raising the tensions as it is now. Civil Unions are the best comprimise on both sides.

They are NO sort of compromise! They represent opponents of marriage equality being given absolutely everything they want!
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Oni no Ted

  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
  • War never changes
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2009, 12:25:56 AM »

If the homosexual community continues to push this issue, they will eventually force the passage of a marriage amendment which will permanently end this issue and make it far harder to pass civil union legislation.

History says otherwise

The same thing was said about criminalization of Alcohol, look how well that turned out


"We as a nation need to ban this unholy demon rum!" -Carrie Nation

Quote
Amendment 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.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.


Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.


Amendment XVIII was ratified in 1919
Amendment XXI was ratified in 1933
Logged
Ted Mantuano

Winks

  • (Bar)Tender of the Grove
  • New Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2009, 12:39:09 PM »

Saw this, had to throw it in here.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/50328/catholics-evangelicals-pledge-to-ignore-lgbt-and-abortion-rights-laws

I consider myself a deeply religious and spiritual person (though not catholic), and this actually makes me sick. What was that you were saying Dave about "one step forward two steps back"?
Logged
There are more things in life than just drinking and stabbing things...but those other things just aren't as much fun!

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2009, 12:31:01 PM »

I consider myself a deeply religious and spiritual person (though not catholic), and this actually makes me sick. What was that you were saying Dave about "one step forward two steps back"?

See, when I said it? I was talking about how within a short time we saw the passage of slightly better (and only slightly) federal hate crimes legislation, and also another state in which a minority group's rights were put up to public vote and denied.

What you're linking to is not indicative of the same sort of phenomenon. These groups have never moved in the right direction on the issues at hand, and this declaration indicates a sincere commitment never TO move in the right direction.

The declaration plays fast and loose with history, overstating in many cases the influence of Christianity and the supposedly progressive stance of the church (though I won't say it makes outright false claims - I don't think it does). I think what is most galling is that it is speaking to events that have not occurred. There are no, and can be no (first amendment, you know?) laws that unconditionally force these groups to do any of the things they are rejecting! Certainly, there are some conditional situations where these groups can opt in or out (and this seems to indicate they will opt out), and if they opt in they must abide by certain rules.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up