Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Kimball_Kinnison  12552 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 1/13/04 3:58pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Which began as soon as the government claimed ownership of that concept.

The government does not define the English language. It is constrained by the meanings of words just as much as anyone else is. The only way to change the meaning of words is through the evolution of the language, not by legal decree.

The government can define a circle however it wants, but that does not change the meaning of the word in English.

What about polygamous marriages? Did they never have claim to the word "marriage"?

Go back and look at the definition of marriage I provided. It is the condition of being a husband or a wife, with a husband being a man joined to a woman and a woman being joined to a man.

In polygamous marriages, a man is joined to more than one woman, but it is done on an individual level. The women are not legally joined to each other, only to the man involved. As such, that still fits the definition of marriage. In fact, polygamy is defined as:[blockquote[Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former.[/blockquote]Implicit in the definition of marriage is that it is heterosexual in nature.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12552 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 1/13/04 4:04pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Words and definitions are never set in stone. That they do not equate at the moment does not preclude them from equating in five years, or tomorrow.

However, language does not change by legislative decree, nor by judicial fiat. It is an evolutionary process that takes time.

Dictionaries (including the OED) follow usage. They show what the accepted cultural meanings of words are. If you notice, what I have advocated from the beginning is that the homosexual lobby focus on the "rights" associated with marriage. Over time, this would cause an evolutionary change to the meaning of the word like what they would seek to force now. The difference is that while one is a natural process, the other is an artificial decree.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 4:29pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 4:30pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
Dictionaries (including the OED) follow usage. They show what the accepted cultural meanings of words are. If you notice, what I have advocated from the beginning is that the homosexual lobby focus on the "rights" associated with marriage. Over time, this would cause an evolutionary change to the meaning of the word like what they would seek to force now. The difference is that while one is a natural process, the other is an artificial decree.

Then do you believe that the OED's definition is the "only" definition of marriage?

If this is so, what do you call the combination of a king and queen of the same suit in a card game such as pinochle?

The American Heritage Dictionary, also considered to be an "official" dictionary, defines marriage also as:

  1. .
    • a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

    • b. state of being married; wedlock.

    • c. A common-law marriage.

    • d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

  2. A wedding.
  3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

  4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


So the definition is in the dictionary. Now, per your argument, it is time to change the legality.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12552 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 1/13/04 4:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
So the definition is in the dictionary. Now, per your argument, it is time to change the legality.

The Oxford English Dictionary has long been held as the definitive work outlining the English language. Most terms or definitions are not accepted as being part of the English language until they are included in the OED.

The American Heritage Dictionary is not held as such a standard of the language.

For comparison, the AHD has 90000 entries. The OED has more than 500000 entries, and traces the usage of words over time, placing their terms in historical context.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 4:46pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Are you then arguing that the American Heritage Dictionary, and in fact every other English Dictionary, is wrong?

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12552 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 1/13/04 5:01pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Are you then arguing that the American Heritage Dictionary, and in fact every other English Dictionary, is wrong?

I am stating the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary has long been considered the definitive resource on what constitutes the English language.

While other dictionarites may incorporate slang terms into their volumes before the OED does, this in no way makes it considered an official part of the English language by most scholars.

For example, the AHD includes the term "ebonics", where the OED does not. This is a fairly recent term (less than 20 years old) and has not become fully implanted in the English language. It remains slang, and not official English.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 5:02pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 5:04pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
Perhaps, as the OED has the "definitive" definition (see "repetition", pgs 2,4,6,8, and 10) of marriage in the English language, this explains why other non-english speaking countries have in fact made legal same-sex unions, such Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Canada. But wait, do Canada and New Zealand not speak English?

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 5:24pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 5:44pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
Why are Couples NOT Allowed to Marry?
A world historical look

In various societies, in various eras, marriages are or were forbidden if the couple were:
  • from different tribes,

  • from the same tribe

  • of different races

  • of a particular race

  • of different religions

  • infertile

  • disabled

  • developmentally handicapped

  • of the same sex

  • of different status (e.g. slave and free)


Some Examples
  • In the Roman Empire, a slave was prohibited from marrying a free person. The early Christian church was persecuted, in part, because of their refusal to obey this law.

  • In the past, before slavery was outlawed, Afro-Americans were prohibited from marrying under any circumstances in some U.S. states.
  • Also in the US, miscegenation laws were once enforced in many states. For example:

    - In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to prohibit interracial marriages.
    - By 1750, all the southern colonies as well as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania made interracial marriages illegal.
    - For example, Virginia had a law stating that "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." (Code Ann. A7 20-57) (note: not "man and woman", but "people")
    - By the 1960's at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes at one time.
    - in Maryland, when slavery was introduced in 1664, "the law also prohibited marriages between white women and black men.... between 1935 and 1967, the law was extended to forbid marriage between Malaysians with blacks and whites. The law was finally repealed in 1967."
    - The first court to overturn an anti-miscegenation law was, predictably, the California Supreme Court in 1948.

  • In 1996, the Roman Catholic Church forbade a church marriage because the husband-to-be was a paraplegic, and thus presumably could not engage in sexual activity and consummate the marriage. The couple was free to be married outside of their faith.

  • In most countries with Muslim majorities, a Muslim woman may not marry a man who is not of the same faith. This has produced some interesting results. During the late 1990s, a university professor in Egypt who considers himself to be a Muslim, wrote a book suggesting that Islam was in need of a reformation. Religious courts determined that he was no longer a Muslim and ordered him and his wife to divorce.


In contrast:

  • Ancient Egypt: A tomb of a same sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!

  • Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies.

  • Other countries: Same-sex, long-term relationships have been publicly acknowledged in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Australia, Europe, India, Native America in more modern times. However, they have not necessarily been called marriages.


source


KK EDIT: Just fixing the markup codes to make it more readable.


EDIT EDIT: Dang it! I had just fixed it, then you editted it. So I editted it back. Thanks though.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 1/13/04 5:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
anakin_girl:

You or I can marry the person we loved, just because we happen to be the fortunate ones, the elite, in today's society, and our biology is compatible and causes us to be attracted to the gender that society wants us to be attracted to.

Even the homosexual community itself asserts that only 10 percent of the population is homosexual. That means that at least 90 percent is heterosexual.

To call 90 percent of the population a lucky "elite" is to cause that word serious abuse.

But I digress.


womberty:

Suppose that research showed that something other than monogamous heterosexual parents provided the best environment for children. Suppose, for example, that research found children raised by two female parents fared best.

Would you support legislation that gave this type of coupling special benefits, to encourage them to raise children?

Would you suggest that the government stop offering any benefits to monogamous heterosexual marriages, since those were not technically the "best", no matter how good they proved to be?

I don't believe that trustworthy research would lead to that conclusion, but let's suppose for a moment that, on average, either a gay male couple or a lesbian couple is better at raising children than a heterosexual couple.

There are other consequences.

Let's say that a gay male couple is found to be better at raising a child than that child's biological mother. Do you really want to live in a society in which the government prevents a woman from raising her biological child? Is that really in the mother's best interest?

Let's say a lesbian couple is found to better. Do you really want every man in this society to face -- at most -- only financial consequences for getting a woman pregnant?

I do think a heterosexual couple is, on average, provides the best environment for raising children; kids have needs that can be best met by their father and needs that can be best met by their mother.

But there are also benefits for the parents. Many parents have the psychological need to procreate, and it fulfills that need. Many parents also have the instinct for promiscuity, and it helps rein in that instinct.


Cheveyo, I don't have time to address your every point, so I'll address a few.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

This conclusion's up for debate, but I think here Bidsrup is arguing against a strawman. Few argue that any straight couple is better than any gay couple. We argue that, all else being equal, the straight couple is to be preferred, for at least two reasons:

1. Such an arrangement would involve the biological parents, making them responsible for the child they created.

2. Such an arrangement would aid the child in anchoring his/her gender identiy at an early age.


4. Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

I'll remind you that opposition to murder is also based on religion.

And, I'll also remind you that the idea that humans have rights -- including the right to freely worship -- is itself a religious idea. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to divest the idea of human rights from religion and morality.


8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after...

Full marriage rights except for the right to adopt hardly qualifies as "full," does it?

Until gay couples adopt en masse, and they raise those kids, and those kids raise children of their own, it's not exactly clear that the experiment has been successful in transmitting the cultural mores from generation to generation. It's not clear that the experiment is beneficial in the long term.


9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument...

I, for one, have argued something different: that court rulings that legalize gay marriage would lead to adult incest, polygamy, etc. The "slippery slope" would exist; it's called judicial precedence.

I have yet to see one good reason why my fear is unfounded.

And, I might add, that many of this guy's arguments for gay marriage would work equally well in justifying adult incest and polygamy. It seems fairly hypocritical of him to dismiss these latter arrangements.

After all, he just advocated gay marriage on the basis that "you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now."

Wouldn't that also be true of polygamy?

 

-----signature-----
"It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are."
http://bible.crosswalk.com/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 6:22pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 6:26pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
Cheveyo, I don't have time to address your every point, so I'll address a few.

Feel free to address the others later.

We argue that, all else being equal, the straight couple is to be preferred, for at least two reasons:

1. Such an arrangement would involve the biological parents, making them responsible for the child they created.

2. Such an arrangement would aid the child in anchoring his/her gender identiy at an early age.

Preface: "All things being equal", same-sex marriage would not be debatable, because it would not exist, as all humans would have an affinity toward the opposite sex. But, alas, here we are.

1: Were you to glimpse into the child protection cases throughout this nation, you would see that biological attachment does not "make" all parents "responsible for the child they created".

2: Has was previously pointed out the have already been countless well documented scientific (psychological) studies proving that the sexuality of a child's guardian has no detectable influence on the child's "gender identity".

Both of your examples fail to address the issue of adoption within a family.
  • From your 1:, the guardian in an adoption has no biological tie, yet they take on and welcome the responsibility of parenting. How is this different from gay couples?
  • From your 2:, there have been cases where one homosexual (belonging to an unrecognized union) has been permitted to adopt. In these cases, the sexual identity of the child has remained as it was prior to adoption.


I'll remind you that opposition to murder is also based on religion.

And, I'll also remind you that the idea that humans have rights is itself a religious idea.

False on both counts. Understanding the founding of this nation and its laws, it comes to light in most writings that the laws are based on European "Common Law", and not a religious doctrine.

Full marriage rights except for the right to adopt hardly qualifies as "full," does it?
It is a far cry better than what we have instated here.

Until gay couples adopt en masse, and they raise those kids, and those kids raise children of their own, it's not exactly clear that the experiment has been successful in transmitting the cultural mores from generation to generation.

Read my above post about historical marriages.

I have yet to see one good reason why my fear is unfounded.

Why are you afraid?

Also, you must have missed one of my earlier posts. It is lengthy, so I shan't post it's entirety here. It may be found in this thread, timestamped 12/13/03 10:37pm (middle of pg 11, when formatted to standard 25-posts per page). Here is the excerpt in question:
"If gay marriage, what next? Polygamy? Boyfriend/girlfriend tax benefits? College Roomate benefits?"
When tested in the application at the top of this post, these concerns fall short of linking to the underlying issue at hand: the act and qualification of marriage.
- Polygamy: State and federal laws dictate that any marriage certificate signed by an individual already locked in matrimony is deemed falsified, and thus invalid.
- Boyfriend/girlfriend tax benefits: As the couple in question have not identified through lawful certification that they intend to cohabitate for the remainder of their lives, they do not qualify as "married" under state or federal law for state or federal tax relief.
- College Roomates: As above.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 1/13/04 6:25pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 6:27pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
How again do the arguments for the courts to force gay marriage not work when it comes to polygamy and adult incest?

"Polygamy: State and federal laws dictate that any marriage certificate signed by an individual already locked in matrimony is deemed falsified, and thus invalid."

What prevents the court from overturning these laws, too?

 

-----signature-----
"It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are."
http://bible.crosswalk.com/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
dustchick  242 posts
Registered: Aug '00
8005_Padme
Date Posted: 1/13/04 6:29pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Somebody a while back brought up common law marriage and combined with Genghis' arguments about the ability for homosexuals to get married, I thought I'd bring up the usual standards for common law marriage in the states that recognize it:

(from findlaw.com)
* a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages
* for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
* holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
* intending to be married.

You'll note that it must be a heterosexual couple. That means in common law states, homosexuals have fewer marriage capabilities than heterosexuals because they would only satisfy 3 out of the 4 criteria.

You'll also note that these rules do not apply to individuals, but rather couples.

You may also note that "intent to procreate" is not listed, either.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Cheveyo  5500 posts
Registered: Oct '01
47802_Corran Horn
Date Posted: 1/13/04 6:34pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/13/04 6:38pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
What prevents the court from overturning these laws, too?

How does polygamy and adult incest equate to gay marriage?

However, to appease you, here is what religious tolerance.org says on that:

ARGUMENT:If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygamy, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.

  • Prior to 1840, the only legal marriages in the U.S. were between one man and one woman. Then, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS and the Mormons) introduced polygamy as the preferred family structure. This was legal in Utah before it was admitted as a state to the Union. In 1890, their President received a revelation from God to suspend polygamy for an indefinite period. However, during the half century that polygamy was legally practiced, the other practices mentioned above never developed.

  • In British Columbia, Canada, there are Mormon groups who were excommunicated decades ago by the main LDS church because they practice polygamy. They still live in plural marriages. Their practice never expanded into other parts of British Columbia society with no opposition from the provincial government. Other marital structures never developed.

  • Marriage is precisely what the courts and legislatures choose to define it to be. Legislation can define it to be "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman. In that case, same sex couples would be denied the opportunity to marry. But, a law can also be written to define marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." This was suggested by the Ontario Court of Appeal on 2003-JUN-10 when they legalized same-sex marriage for the first time. Legislatures can then define circumstances in which two people might not be allowed to marry -- e.g. they are two closely related genetically, or if they are too young.

 

-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
womberty  3669 posts
Registered: Jan '02
Date Posted: 1/13/04 6:42pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Let's say that a gay male couple is found to be better at raising a child than that child's biological mother. Do you really want to live in a society in which the government prevents a woman from raising her biological child? Is that really in the mother's best interest?

I never suggested that the government would prevent anyone from raising a child outside of the government's preferred family union, or that the government would have the responsibility to supply those unions with children. Right now, single parents and gay couples can already raise children; they just don't get the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.

In my hypothetical scenario, this would be partially reversed. A different union would be government sanctioned and receive benefits, but all other family types are still allowed.


Let's say a lesbian couple is found to better. Do you really want every man in this society to face -- at most -- only financial consequences for getting a woman pregnant?

Who ever said that a person would not be held responsible for parenting a child? In the hypothetical scenario, however, the responsibilities imposed would be the same now applied to single parents (both male and female).


I do think a heterosexual couple is, on average, provides the best environment for raising children; kids have needs that can be best met by their father and needs that can be best met by their mother.

That sounds like an opinion.

Others are of the opinion that two parents of the same sex are sufficient, and still others are of the opinion that the more adults available to fill a child's needs, the better (as in an extended family living communally).


But there are also benefits for the parents. Many parents have the psychological need to procreate, and it fulfills that need. Many parents also have the instinct for promiscuity, and it helps rein in that instinct.

Why does the government have an interest in filling those needs?

Besides that, allowing gays to marry and adopt would fulfill those needs in other adults. Why are their needs ignored, if the government is indeed interested in helping them fulfill them?

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 1/13/04 7:00pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
False on both counts. Understanding the founding of this nation and its laws, it comes to light in most writings that the laws are based on European "Common Law", and not a religious doctrine.

I seem to remember some legal document that asserts that men are endowed by their Creator certain rights...

Hm...

If you want to argue that the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document, fine, but the United States isn't a colony of Great Britain, is it?

Even ignoring the Declaration of Independence, there's a problem with gay activists appealing to the right to be free from all laws with a basis in religion:

1. Every right is simply restating an "ought" statement. (E.g., "I have the right to live" is equivalent to the statement, "Everyoung else ought to abstain from taking my life.")

2. No "ought" statement can be derived from an "is" statement.

3. From #1 and #2, we conclude that no right can be derived from an "is" statement.

4. The universe is composed of just "is" statements, no "ought" statements.

5. From #3 and #4, we conclude that no right can be derived from the universe.

6. Therefore, rights are supernatural.

The belief in the supernatural can only be called a religious belief. If you exclude all laws with any religious basis, you undercut the idea of rights itself.

 

-----signature-----
"It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are."
http://bible.crosswalk.com/
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64214) 0.797