The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

Ok, so Gnarff and Aldeth managed to respond to me before it all descended into chaos again. How about Splunge, DR, and Ragusa? Any comments?

 

Again, you're right. It is a matter of principle that we defend what we call sacred. I've suggested that they don't have to redefine marriage, but many people won't listen. Until a compromise is reached, this fight--yes a fight--will continue.

The point is that as long as the authority is legitimate, it doesn't matter whether it's civil or religious authority officiating it. The covenents are the same regardless of whether it's a civil, Mormon, Jewish, Muslin, Catholic or any other appropriate authority. These covenents are in force regardless of whether you acknowledge God or not. that Marriage is just as sacred whether it's a Judge or a priest.

 

So if a legitimate authority (such as the courts) says that homosexuals can call their union a marriage, it's OK? And if that legitimate authority recognizes a same-sex covenant (i.e. agreement) as binding, then it's OK to call it a marriage?

Somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. But I have no idea how your reply answers my question, so I'll ask it again:

Why is it OK for a non-religious heterosexual civil union to be called a marriage, when that union doesn't acknowledge a god?

And I'm going to ask that someone other than Gnarfflinger answers, because I suspect any reply that he gives won't be much different than what he's already given.

As an aside, isn't it spelled "covenant", not "covenent"?

 

You asked specifically about heterosexual couples the first time. The Covenent of Marriage also requires that the couple be man and woman. Therefore gay marriage is not okay. For the court to do this ultimately uses civil pressure to attack religious doctrine.

If I could remember my password, I'd use Firefox for the spellchecker, but it still doesn't like the proper English spellings of words like colour, flavour...

 

No. I asked (and have always asked) why is it OK for a non-religious heterosexual union to be called a marriage when that union doesn't recognize God.

And that question still hasn't been answered.

 

Oh, you're making an interesting point. It is probably just overkill.

I hold that language and people can live with ambiguous language if they only want to. The point is that the opposition has decided they don't want to live with it in the case of 'gay marriage'. They will keep up their reiterations ad infinitum.

Getting rid of the word 'marriage' will if anything make them even angrier, as in the predictable reaction along these lines:

That said, because of this, I consider your proposal unwise, and it probably goes past the real problem. Personally, I'd say that the homosexual variant of the marriage status and contract ought to be called a 'civil union' and begone with this charade. Ultimately this is about an unwillingness to accept that the state in the US is secular. Very much related to this is the babble about America's Judaeo-Christian roots, or the evergreen, the 'debate' about Darwinism i.e. Creationism.

The problem here is not wording. Wording is just the pretext to wage a culture war. In a war people choose their battles and them gays and lesbians are a sufficiently small and icky minority as to allow for that at relatively little cost, with the added benefit of the smokescreen of seemingly being bickering about semantics. Also, the 'threat' from these 'others', these abominations, rallies the foot troops (like Gnarff). Also, as an abomination they not only deserve criticism for their immoral life, as bad ass sinners they are fair game - for conversion and bashing alike. Also, just in case you aren't raptured and have to die, it won't look bad in the big book when you have demonstrated your adherence to the scripture by bashing gays in your lifetime. Hallelujah. Because, gays and gay parades make Him mad, and he sends hurricanes to destroy sinful cities.

 

Darnit ragusa, that was a perfect post for the:sarcasm: smiley that has been discussed.


P.S. hey does anyone know what happened to Drew? He hasn't posted in almost 2 weeks. We need his Vegan input to keep things interesting.

 

Now hold it, Ragusa. There are a lot more than just the Christian Right that holds gay marriage in disgust. Remember, it was the same democratic, liberal blacks that elected Obama in California that were also pivitol in passing Proposition 8. Religion isn't high on their demographic identifiers list.

Ultimately, it's about the US being a democratic republic, where the people appointed or elected into the system rule. We're fine sitting here and arguing back and forth, and even better going and voting for the people we want to support, but ultimately, no matter what, it's those elected and appointed representatives that decide. Just because the State is secular doesn't mean that it must oppose the Religion position.

Ok, I'm not up on internet forum terminology, but is that flaming or trolling? I mean, the completely needless, bitter attack on the oposition that you now see as the enemy based not on the actual philosophy, theology, or the like, but by taking the words of the most hateful speakers that claim to be on our side, even though we have never agreed with them... I've always known you prefered demagogery, Ragusa, but this is a perfect example.

 

I don't know (and particularly care) about the black opposition towards gay marriage. And I might be wrong, but there probably haven't been all that many black, liberal posters joining the conservative ranks in the discussion on this board.

The question is what you want. How does that religious influence on the state show? Through laws. Do you want laws informed by religious morality? Where would that put an abomination? In jail? Would it fine it? Would it allow for gay parades? What about mandatory or obligatory prayers in school, court or the military? Do you want a state religion? What religion? Lutheran Protestantism? Evangelical Christian Protestantism? Catholicism? Orthodox Christianity? What about Atheists? Muslims? Jews?

Actually I have put it too mild: The fact that the Religious Conservative refuse to accept is that the US as a country is indeed not only secular but *pluralistic*. That is in their eyes the threat to religion because the state, by being neutral, treats them equal with others, and is thus accepting as equal the others - Atheists, Muslims, Wiccan's and whatnot - and they can't have that. That goes well beyond blacks statistically not liking gays. The opposition towards that inevitable relativism inherent in equal treatment under the law is the very essence of what the Christian Right's culture war is all about. You can think that to the end if you like.

Demagoguery, eh? I don't hold the literalistic evangelical theology in high regard. I hold the Christian Right point of view on gays in even lesser regard. What I wrote in the passage you quoted was not demagoguery but about 40% disdain and 60% ridicule. You're free to use either term. And why 'that you now see'? I do not recall having ever voiced a significantly different view.

 

And that's the problem, Ragusa. You don't care about facts that challenge you're perception. The fact that a slim majority of Americans dislike gay marriage, by your logic, could only equate to a slim majority of Americans being a part of the Religious Conservative movement, because those are the demons of the moment you have chosen.

Now you're starting to sound like Coin. This may be true of the most lunatic fringe of the Religious Conservative movement, but that's like saying that blacks hate whites and want them all killed, simply because there are certain fringe groups of blacks that do. Also, relativistic morality is in no way inherrant in the idea of equal treatment under the law. Relitavistic morality leads (if you follow the logic) to things like pedophilia, rape, theft, and murder being acceptable, while equal treatment under the law simply says they're illegal for everyone.

It's demagoguery when you stop discussing legitimate points of debate (definition of marriage, history of the term, etc.) and start simply trying to rile up hate and fear through items that have nothing to do with the discussion. I don't bring up all the gays that want to hang strait men, do I? I don't bring up the gay rights protestors that have broken into churches, do I? Why not? Because they are only representative of a fringe minority that exist in all groups and that do not really influence the heart of the discussion. You bring up the same on the opposite side and paint it as the entire (and only) opposition. That's demagoguery.

And the 'that you now see as the enemy' was only trying to show that you have gone from seeing things in a 'difference of opinion' light, with both sides treating the other civilly, to a 'I'm right, they're wrong, and the only way to stop them is to destroy them' light that leads only to blind attacks and hate. You've gone from seeing us as opponents to enemies.

 

I've answered it four times. The answer doesn't change no matter how many times you ask the question. Marriage is marriage, regardless of whether it's religious or civil. God, whether acknowledged or not, holds the couple to the same covenants regardless of the faith of the authority. And you did specify heterosexual in the couple, so that DOES NOT APPLY to homosexual couples.

It is also accoutable to the People. In November, the People spoke that they didn't want Gay Marriage. This brings the number of States with such constitutional ammendments to 30. The Politicians and Judges can play paper-rock-scissors all they want, but the people have spoken. That should be the end of it...

The side favouring Gay Marriage if fighting for the same wording as the Religious faithful--meaning not necessarily right or left--use. This is designed to erase the difference between the faithful and what they can't accept. This, to them, is intolerable.

I just class it under being an *******...

Successful politicians play to the people. If the people are religious, the politicians will pander to that. The ones that want to get re-elected will continue to do as their people will want. In California and Florida the people said that they DON'T want gay marriage, and the state politicians will abide that. And don't expect Obama to change that because if he loses California and Florida, then even Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush could take the White House...

False. Despite the theological differences, numerous Chirstian faiths co-exist with a minimum of flak between. There is even a degree of tolerance for other religions, but the laws exist to put the brakes on some elements of doctrines that would be offensive. For example, Plural Marriage is forbidden, and any faith that allows it cannot practice that element freely. Religious practices that allow for killing or assaulting people are also forbidden. While arranged marriages are still allowed, they are not legally enforcable. Regardless of the age restrictions of a faith, they are still subject to the marriage laws of the land, meaning that they can't marry off a pair of 8 year olds. They allow for a great degree of plurality, but laws are placed where there are lines that should not be crossed.

AS it applies to homosexuals, they agree that beating them and killing them is bad. Words like "Queer", "Faggot" and "Homo" are now politically incorrect. They are allowed to practice freely under similar restrictions to heterosexual couples (consent, age, no public indecency). The Religious faithful still consider their actions to be sins, and they don't want them to marry. I may actually be in a minority among the Faithful that believes that they should have certain rights as couples, but that DOES NOT mean I want them to marry. I have no problem with them filing taxes jointly. They should have visitation rights to their partner in the hospital, and inheiritance rights. But these, and 1000 plus other things that are not in place, can be resolved without allowing them to marry.

To the faithful, Marriage is sacred, and as such, explicitly between a Man and a Woman. Everywhere the people were given the chance to vote on it, they have supported that definition. Even the Federal Supreme Court upheld that in 1878...

WRONGO! What we can't have is the secular state teaching our children that marriage between same sex couples is perfectly valid when the parents of the children believe that Marriage is explicitly between a Man and a Woman. If the State insists that our faith be kept out of the classroom, why must we suffer that other ethical values--especially contradictory to our own--be crammed down the throats of our children?

Actually, I've incorporated one of his ideas in my more recent arguments that gays don't need to marry to have their rights...

Relativistic morality can work for a state as long as there are clear lines that are not to be crossed. Right now the argument is on where one of those lines (Marriage) is.

 

Apparently.

No I do not. What nonsense. Stop pitying yourself for having become the target of my mockery. I see you as, utterly, unrelenting in your views. There is little point in discussing this with you as you are unlikely to be swayed in you views by argument. This is dogmatic issue, and as such near intractable. If you don't believe it re-read this thread.

Do I see 'gay marriage' as equal with Christian Marriage? No I do not. It is like children playing marriage. Does that take away anything from the sacrament of marriage? Not it doesn't. That is a thing administered by a priest. The secular part is a different and separate issue entirely - so, to do it properly, in Germany you correspondingly marry twice. Is there a legal need to give a framework to the reality of cohabiting gay couples? Certainly.

I know where your argument is coming from. That you maybe only embrace half of the arguments coming from there doesn't change that you're part of the larger picture, and it doesn't particularly matter whether you're aware of it or not. I am sure your views are honest, deeply held and strong, but that doesn't make a difference either.

Even though I am Catholic, my largely pluralistic view on this is informed by exercise of constitutional rights. The US Christian Right is a reactionary movement that wants to roll back many of the achievements of the civil rights era. They even go further - the babble about America's Judaeo-Christian roots includes an implicit claim for at least semi-official or just tacit state religion status. I do not think that is a good idea. In fact, I think it is dangerous. I am persuaded that it is impossible to reconcile the desired preferential treatment that the Christian Right wants with equal treatment under the law for all religions, period. That is especially so when they call for the state to include their religious views in law and in extension to enforce them on the other religions, the indifferent, unwilling or unbelieving.

That, just to make sure it gets through, is my point.

Gnarff,
your lamentations for how long it will take until the state enforces his marriage on the churches are hysterical, really. This isn't ever going to happen. I take it you're reiterating the fulminations you get to hear from the pulpit.

 

Are you kidding me? Have you read my posts for the last two pages? I've been proposing a comprimize that gives both sides what they really (seem to) want most. Yet you call me "utterly, unrelenting in your views"? Are you confusing me with someone else?

And this is exactly what I was proposing, only call the civil contract a civil union and remove the term 'marriage' from the legal dialect.

You realize that you have just admitted to being unwilling to broke any change in the arguement? As long as the other side does not start out with 'Ok, I guess you were right and we were wrong', you seem to be perfectly willing to ignore everything they say and argue anyway, even when they've radically changed their position because, to you, they're still 'part of a larger group' and 'it doesn't matter if they're only embracing half the arguement'.

Ok, now you've equalled Coin. What, do you think we want to revoke the woman's right to vote? Do you think we want to 'put the black man back in his place'? Hell, we're not even talking about 'free love' laws (removing adultery from the law books, etc.). I've got news for you, Ragusa, that's not even the wacko fringe of the Religious Right. That's the KKK and if you're trying to equate me to the KKK then you're more nuts than anyone else on these boards right now.

And who on earth said anything about giving Christianity special treatment? You did, and you're the only one. No matter how much you hate the idea, Christians aren't the only ones who oppose gay marriage. So do Muslims, so do Hindus, so do many Bhuddists (though I don't think that's doctrinal), and dozens of smaller religions. They're all asking for the same definition we are. And that's not even counting all the atheists and agnostics that oppose gay marriage (though I'm sure you don't count them either).

Ragusa, get over yourself. In your attempt to defend your position, you've gone from ridiculous to angry, to ludicrous, and you're verging past that.

 

I’m going to try this one last time, because I’m getting tired of the argument (as I’m sure everyone else is).

You seem to be talking about covenants; i.e. the agreement between the partners. I’m just talking about the use of the word “marriage”.

Your whole objection to using the word “marriage” in reference to a homosexual union is that it desecrates a sacred word. The only way it can be called “sacred” is if it is viewed in a religious context. Which to me means that, in order for it to maintain its sacredness, it has to meet all of the requirements of a religious marriage. These include that it be between a man and a woman, and that the ceremony (and therefore the union itself) contain a recognition of god. A heterosexual civil union doesn’t have the latter, so it violates the sacredness. And if it’s not sacred, then why is it OK in to refer to it as a marriage?

 

NOG,
as a matter of fact, I have not read your posts on the last two pages I directly replied only to your small post here and only to what you wrote on page 7.

What I have been saying before is that the right chose to fight the battle over 'gay marriage'. In my understanding they chose the fight over the wedge issue homosexuality over the presumable wording issue. The benefits of that as opposed to open gay bashing is that you can address the immorality of those abominations without attacking them directly, but by arguing about the right of immoral abominations to copy marriage. Gay bashing with plausible deniability - after all marriage is between a man and a woman ... all your 'reasonable compromising' doesn't change that one iota, and when it addresses the wording trough 'reasonable compromise' it addresses the pretext and not the cause. The issue itself remains. So this is just a diversion and IMO a waste of time to discuss (which should explain my impatience).

The battle over 'gay marriage' is just one skirmish in a larger fight, often called the American Culture War. In this skirmish you are a foot soldier, with probably benign individual motives, but you're nevertheless, probably unwittingly, part of a larger picture. And I don't really care whether you don't know that or don't mind it.

If you care to look then you will find that the 'culture war' I have repeatedly been referring to encompasses 'litmus test' or wedge or hot-button issues like gay marriage as well as abortion, Darwinism vs. Creationism, setting up the ten commandments in court and having public prayer, proselytising in the armed forces, separation of church and state, getting according court verdicts repealed and laws enacted and all that. Those are focus issues for the Christian Right, and coincidentally issues that won the GOP elections.

What we are talking about here is profoundly political. This isn't just about gay marriage and certainly not about finding a reasonable solution and if you insist otherwise you're kidding yourself. I know the Christian Right is a diverse bunch, that means you can disagree with many things there and still be a part of it. These issues are still the elements of the common strategy that they have used over the last decades. And that isn't exactly news.

 

Why can't Aetheists have their kids sit down and shut up for two minutes while the Lord's Prayer is read over the PA system? Just as the State won't let our values being taught in the classroom, we don't want other groups forcing different values down the throats of our children. No matter what the first ammendment says, when the church and state are into conflict, the state has the power. They will force their way as opposed to letting the individual faiths decide for themselves.

Not quite. Yes, they are largely reactionary, but they react to an apparent attack on the religious fiber of the nation. They have been up in arms about Abortion because they believe that dehumanizing the unborn is unhealthy for society. They support the traditional, heterosexual definition of Marriage. They oppose the attempts to undermine its sanctity by affiliating it with a sinful lifestyle.

But that framework was in place in California BEFORE the case went to the supreme court. There were laws enabling a domestic partnership between homosexual couples. This framework would grant every possible right to such couples without trying to get the state to override religious doctrine. Insisting that the state do so is nothing but an act of bigotry.

And the difference between then and any other lobby group that pulls thing out of their ass that they want to see enforced on others that may not give a damn--or even oppose what this group wants!

Actually the History books. Over the last 232 years, there have been multiple instances where the doctrine of a faith has come into conflict with the laws of the US. In every case, the First Ammendment was ignored, and the chruch in question was subservient of the state, rather than separate. Even in the last 141 years in Canada, that's been the case. If the appeals fail a Marriage commissioner, what is to stop a gay couple with an axe to grind against the faith their family held from using anti discrimination clauses to force a religious authority to perform the ceremony or else be charged--or worse, bring legal sanctions against the faith in general! At what point could a religion lose the right to refuse a homosexual minister?

I'm sorry, were you expecting me to launch an obscenity laden tirade making oedipal accusations and inferring canine ancestry? Perhaps questioning your intelligence? Or am I just supposed to launch into some hate-filled spiel where I call for violence against homosexuals? If that's the case, then you really need a life...

Exactly the component I have said is NOT mandatory for the marriage to be sacred in the eyes of God. God exists, whether people believe or not. God's laws exist whether they are acknowledged or not. Just as with civil law, ignorance is no excuse.

Your premise is flawed. Marriage is sacred, regardless of authority. Just because it's a judge and the name of God or reference to the Divine nature of the covenants are not mentioned does not mean that they are not in force. If nobody is reminding you to stop for red lights and obey the speed limits when you get in your car, do those laws cease to exist?

 

No, not really, Gnarff (and it's a tragic reality). All those bad marriages out there prove that it's not. It's the way in which two people treat marriage that makes it sacred, not the actuality of how most marriages really turn out in the real world.

 

It's about the sin, not the sinner. But at the same time, the rights of this group of sinners does lag behind what it should be because the activists are focusing on forcing a change in religious doctrine granting them one of our most sacred ordinances when this is a direct contradiction of our beliefs.

What I see as the cause is simple. A group that for centuries was not tolerated is now asking for rights that they didn't have before. While they really should have these rights, society is struggling with how to grant them without legitimizing their sins. The "reasonable compromise" is an attempt to satisfy both camps.

The issue remains because a group that's been told for decades that they can't have their faith pushed on others is now being told that another group wants to force their beliefs on them. And because such a framework exists to grant them these civil rights without disturbing the religious doctrines, the conclusion that I come to is that the insistance on gay marriage is inspired of hatred for a group that will never be able to tell them what they want to hear.

A foot soldier in defense of that which I consider sacred. I emphasize that it is abour defending, not attacking, aggression or hatred. Though we can't condone homosexuality, we don't hate them.

If the Democrats ignore the will of the Religious Right on these issues, then, other things equal, the GOP will benefit from this extra support.

So you admit this is about one group trying to force its views on another?

---------- Added 0 hours, 15 minutes and 57 seconds later... ----------

On the contrary, marriages fail when one or both sides of the couple fail to live up to the covenents they made when they got married. It is the failure to recognize and honour the sacred covenents they made that leads to divorce. You even said it yourself about the treatment of spouse--one important covenent!

 

You have an uncanny ability to repeat what I just remarked. Nevertheless, a lot of people don't honour it. Believe it or not a lot of people don't even treat it as "sacred." They just go down to the courthouse on their day off and sign the paperwork. There is nothing sacred about that, and there is no "convenent" to honour:

http://nevada-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/las_vegas_weddings