Party "A" and Party "B"

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - I've never heard of any state with Sexual Orientation as a protected class. In terms of hate crimes it's probably listed, but not as a protected class like sex, race, handicapped status (ADA added this), or religion.

I don't know the details for every state, BB. Here, it's a protected class under the Washington State Law Against Discrimination.

 

[Spiderman]

Oversoul pretty much echoed my views, so no need to re-hash. The only thing I have to add is

Still, the Bible is pretty clear, calling homosexuality "An abomination before God" and similar language.

I believe the Bible has a lot to say on topics that aren't "in vogue" now, such as slavery and polygamy. Should we adhere to those too?

 

[Oversoul]

I believe the Bible has a lot to say on topics that aren't "in vogue" now, such as slavery and polygamy. Should we adhere to those too?

Good point. With slavery, antebellum politicians used this as one of their favorite arguments. And with polygamy, it was at least brought up by the Mormons when they were fighting for legalized polygamy some time ago. So there are certainly things the Bible seems to condone that we as a society do not. And there are things the Bible seems to condemn that we permit.

I remember a conversation with someone who (I forget how this came up) had been raised in a sect that considered it wrong to eat shellfish (because of the Bible). When she first tried shellfish, she was allergic* to it and started getting sick, so she thought her god was striking her down for disobeying him.

*For the sake of accuracy I should note that it may not have technically been an allergic reaction, but some other kind of bad reaction. I don't remember and I guess it doesn't actually matter anyway.

 

[mythosx]

Oversoul pretty much echoed my views, so no need to re-hash. The only thing I have to add is



I believe the Bible has a lot to say on topics that aren't "in vogue" now, such as slavery and polygamy. Should we adhere to those too?

What does the bible say about slavery and poligamy Spidey? I don't think you actually know do you? I'll sum it up short and brief. The bible is against those. I don't want to publish a doctorate level thesis. I believe that you are alluding to the fact that it records people doing both those things. The bible does not condone either. Don't open that can of worms please.

Oversoul:

You made alot of points some I agree with, some I don't. The one key thing you have completely wrong is Marriage is not a religious institution, but rather a Governmental one. It's actually backwards. Marriage was a religious institution that the government stuck its nose into. It is one of the most sacred bonds in almost all religions. The government should never have made it a state regulated thing. It gives unfair tax advantages against people who don't believe in marriage.

 

[Spiderman]

Somehow, the fact that many personages from the Old Testament, specifically Genesis (which seems to be where homsexuality is referred to), had multiple wives, such as Abraham, Isaac, etc. seems to indicate that the Bible is NOT against it.

 

[mythosx]

They had multiple wives yes. They were also humans and fell short of the ideal. So? Doesn't mean poligamy is ok with the bible. They also murdered people, told lies, etc. Doesn't mean that those things are ok. Most bible characters were not perfect people. I don't claim I am perfect either. But the ideals, teachings and commandments are not to be faulted just because I am at fault.

 

[EricBess]

Homosexuality is also mentioned in Romans very clearly (1:27), along with a few additional references throughout both New and Old Testiments.

I don't know of any specific discussion on slavery in the Bible where it even suggests that it is condoned. Certainly, there were instances of slavery throughout the Bible, but I am not aware of any referring to prophets or people of the church having slaves.

As for poligamy, Abraham had multiple wives, which seemed to be condoned of God. However, there is also condemnation spoken upon Solomon and David for having multiple wives and concubines. I would interpret this as evidence that poligamy, as ordained by God, has specific rules that haven't necessarily been made clear to us (and that currently are not in place).

Oversoul - If it doesn't phase you that "Husband and Wife" or "Bride or Groom" are removed from the marriage licence, I'm not sure what I can say about it. It is a slap in the face at best to those who do care about such things and one minor example of how things are likely to change in the long run if Proposition 8 doesn't pass. BTW - my frame of reference on this is California, which does provide all of the same legal rights for civil union, so there is no legal reason why proposition 22 should have been overturned and the statements about it agree, but overturn it anyway on what could be argued as non-legal reasons.

As for the origins of marriage, I think Genesis does say something about that. It is fairly clear to me that Adam and Eve were married at the hand of God and there really hadn't been much government established at that point.

I would counter by saying that marriage is certainly a religious institution and the only reason for a need of legal intercession is because of convenience. Rather than re-create something they deems obvious, marriage was used and associated with legal rights.

So, Oversoul, for the most part, your reasonings are very sound and logical, but I disagree with you on the above two points.

As for the Bible, you state that any court should simply throw out any legislation against the Bible on the grounds of first amendment and I agree with you, but I point out that the key word here being "should". Recent history has shown that the courts are getting more and more brazen in what they choose to actual do. All I'm saying is that we are still just seeing the tip of the iceburg and unless we do everything we can to slow the progress, we are going to be seeing more and more religious freedom being removed from us in the name of "tolerance and equality".

And please don't get me wrong. I have no problem with how people want to live their lives. Current events open a lot of concerning territory from activists that has already led to less protection for our children and will eventually lead to a breakdown in the family, which in turn leads to a breakdown of society.

BTW - one need only look historically to see that the fall of quite a few empires was frequently preceded an embracing of hedonism.

 

[Spiderman]

mythosx: I'm not saying they're perfect people. What I'm saying is that there are many things in the Bible and people cannot pick and choose what they agree with and what they don't, if they choose to cite the Bible at all.

However, there is also condemnation spoken upon Solomon and David for having multiple wives and concubines.

If anything, David was condemned on how he obtained his multiple wives (I'm thinking Urich and his wife -Bathsheba?) or that Solomon married wives who did not follow God and worshipped other gods, rather than the mere presence of multiple wives.

 

[EricBess]

Spiderman, I am certain you are in part correct about David and Solamon. However, I still don't know of any any instance of poliagamy being accepted in the Bible where it was not specifically condoned by God. And to be fair, I am LDS (Mormon), so given the history of the church, I'm the last person to speak out against poligamy where it has been condoned of God. But I don't think that's something that we are allowed to simply take upon ourselves.

By that logic, courts are unnecessary. Anyone who has any problem with anything can just "put it on the ballot."

BTW - Oversoul, I don't see how my logic leads to such a conclusion. I never said that there wasn't a need of courts. All I stated is that courts shouldn't be introducing legislation, only intepreting. In the case of overturning proposition 22, the California Supreme Court overstepped their bounds.

If people want to change something that has been a certain way for an extended period of time with no contestation, then I don't see any problem with asking them to go through the proper procedures of signing petitions, getting something on the ballot, and having the voice of the people be heard.

Honestly, it is ironic to me that it is the Democratic party that is most opposed to proposition 8 right now considering how it happened. A "democracy" is a vote strictly by the people. A "republic" is a vote by representation. America is technically a "democratic republic" meaning that we have elements of both, but in theory, each adheres to the ideals of their namesake. So why should the democrats be so in favor of a decision made in a 4-3 vote by activist judges?

 

[Oversoul]

What does the bible say about slavery and poligamy Spidey? I don't think you actually know do you? I'll sum it up short and brief. The bible is against those. I don't want to publish a doctorate level thesis. I believe that you are alluding to the fact that it records people doing both those things. The bible does not condone either. Don't open that can of worms please.

Oh really? The only parts I've found addressing slavery deal with protocol. If you buy a slave, you must do this. If you sell your daughter into slavery, this protocol must be followed. There's protocol concerning if you beat your slave to death. Some stuff on how inheritance works with your slaves. And there's some stuff in the new testament saying that slaves should obey their masters. As I already mentioned, antebellum proponents of legalized slavery in the United States used these passages to defend slavery because they implied that slavery was, at minimum, allowed by the Bible.

I'm unaware of any passages that directly address polygamy as a thing. This was probably because polygamy was pretty much universal in the time and place a lot of these deal with. The only passages I know of that even indirectly mention polygamy are the ones talking about men in the Bible and their multiple wives. However, many of these men were considered great men. I find it implausible that all of them having multiple wives was, despite being wrong, just unnoticed when other affronts they occasionally committed were dealt with, often harshly.

You made alot of points some I agree with, some I don't. The one key thing you have completely wrong is Marriage is not a religious institution, but rather a Governmental one. It's actually backwards. Marriage was a religious institution that the government stuck its nose into. It is one of the most sacred bonds in almost all religions. The government should never have made it a state regulated thing. It gives unfair tax advantages against people who don't believe in marriage.

I'm not wrong. At least not legally. Marriage might be a religious institution to YOU and not a governmental one. But to the government in the U.S. it is indeed a governmental issue. And they're the ones with, you know, the big guns. You can talk about what should be or what should have been all you like. But marriage legally is a state issue, rather than a religious one. I think I've already made it clear that I'm inclined to think this shouldn't be the case. So in this instance, I guess we agree. But there's a big difference between how we want things to be and how they actually are.

They had multiple wives yes. They were also humans and fell short of the ideal. So? Doesn't mean poligamy is ok with the bible. They also murdered people, told lies, etc. Doesn't mean that those things are ok. Most bible characters were not perfect people. I don't claim I am perfect either. But the ideals, teachings and commandments are not to be faulted just because I am at fault.

But there wasn't any teaching or commandment against polygamy. You wouldn't say chewing bubble gum is wrong just because the Bible doesn't say it's not wrong. The only difference with polygamy is that it's now socially unacceptable and illegal in many countries. For the characters in the old testament, it was not only accepted, but the norm.

Homosexuality is also mentioned in Romans very clearly (1:27), along with a few additional references throughout both New and Old Testiments.

http://cectic.com/157.html

Oversoul - If it doesn't phase you that "Husband and Wife" or "Bride or Groom" are removed from the marriage licence, I'm not sure what I can say about it. It is a slap in the face at best to those who do care about such things and one minor example of how things are likely to change in the long run if Proposition 8 doesn't pass.

Change for the worse, I'm guessing you mean. But do you have any evidence for that?

As for the origins of marriage, I think Genesis does say something about that. It is fairly clear to me that Adam and Eve were married at the hand of God and there really hadn't been much government established at that point.

Did we get on the subject of the origins of marriage again? I missed how that happened. In any case, I don't care what Genesis has to say about it. Genesis could say that marriage spontaneously appeared from Vishnu's navel, and I wouldn't find it any more or less compelling.

I would counter by saying that marriage is certainly a religious institution and the only reason for a need of legal intercession is because of convenience. Rather than re-create something they deems obvious, marriage was used and associated with legal rights.

Pretty much.

As for the Bible, you state that any court should simply throw out any legislation against the Bible on the grounds of first amendment and I agree with you, but I point out that the key word here being "should". Recent history has shown that the courts are getting more and more brazen in what they choose to actual do.

Well, I hope, for all our sakes, that they do continue to uphold the first amendment. But what recent history are you referring to?

All I'm saying is that we are still just seeing the tip of the iceburg and unless we do everything we can to slow the progress, we are going to be seeing more and more religious freedom being removed from us in the name of "tolerance and equality".

More and more? Are you suggesting that some already has been?

And please don't get me wrong. I have no problem with how people want to live their lives. Current events open a lot of concerning territory from activists that has already led to less protection for our children and will eventually lead to a breakdown in the family, which in turn leads to a breakdown of society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

BTW - one need only look historically to see that the fall of quite a few empires was frequently preceded an embracing of hedonism.

We're not supposed to be an empire. I don't think history actually supports this claim anyway. And we weren't discussing hedonism in the first place. So this seems irrelevant on three different levels.

BTW - Oversoul, I don't see how my logic leads to such a conclusion. I never said that there wasn't a need of courts. All I stated is that courts shouldn't be introducing legislation, only intepreting. In the case of overturning proposition 22, the California Supreme Court overstepped their bounds.

Well, that wasn't actually what you said, but looking back at it, I would think it's fair to assume you meant something along those lines. Alright then. How did the court overstep their bounds? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I really don't know. I think I did read Proposition 22 at some point, but not the court's full statements when the struck it down. They said that it went against the state constitution though, right? Isn't that what courts are supposed to do? Interpret the constitution and determine whether a measure goes against that constitution or not? That doesn't sound like legislating.

Honestly, it is ironic to me that it is the Democratic party that is most opposed to proposition 8 right now considering how it happened. A "democracy" is a vote strictly by the people. A "republic" is a vote by representation. America is technically a "democratic republic" meaning that we have elements of both, but in theory, each adheres to the ideals of their namesake. So why should the democrats be so in favor of a decision made in a 4-3 vote by activist judges?

It looks like you're oversimplifying the current state of the two major political parties and that's why it looks ironic.

 

[EricBess]

Change for the worse, I'm guessing you mean. But do you have any evidence for that?

The fact is, it changed. Whether it was for the worse or the better is largely irrelevant. Almost any change is going to be seen as better by some and worse by others. But again, it comes down to how the change occurred. In this case, the system was circumvented.

It looks like you're oversimplifying the current state of the two major political parties and that's why it looks ironic.

No, I'm commenting on the definitions around which the two parties are named. I'm fully aware that the tenants of each party have changed significantly over the years.

Okay - Proposition 22. Propositions tend to be these wordy affairs that no one can really understand and that have to be picked apart under a microscope. Proposition 22, on the other hand, was a simple 14 words stating, in effect, that marriage in California is only valid and recognized as being between a man and a woman. Call it an agenda, but there are certainly no "hidden agendas".

I'm not sure of the history that led to prop 22, but I know that some judge or group of judges decided that gay and lesbian couples should be able to be married in California, so they decided to go ahead and start doing that, leading to proposition 22 being put on the ballot in 2000, where it passed with 61% support of the voters. Thing is, California already affords all legal rights to domestic partnerships that married people possess, so it's not about limiting the rights of gay and lesbian couples.

I didn't read the entire text of the decision when overturning proposition 22 because it is way too long, but I read through enough of it to get to the important sections. Basically, the California Supreme Court conceded that 1) all legal rights were already available, and 2) there is no legal reason why the name provided gay and lesbian couples needed to be the same as for traditional couples.

On those two basis alone, they should have stopped, and these items weren't in dispute. However, they went on to say that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to the "dignity and respect" that comes from the term "marriage". Problem is, that's a very empty thing. You cannot force someone to have respect and dignity is likewise a very relative thing. I'm not aware of anywhere in the constitution where we are guarenteed respect and dignity. Certainly if those are constitutional rights then I need to have another chat with my kids...

Effectively, the judges didn't do their job. Instead of interpreting law, they weren't happy about proposition 22 and allowed their politics to influence their decision. They themselves awknowledge that it isn't even a legal question because by legal measurements, proposition 22 is constitutional.

It is also worth pointing out that many other states have passed similar propositions for their states which have either not been contested, or have been upheld by the courts.

And concerning the origin of marriage - I think it is sufficient that we agree that it shouldn't be a state-stanctioned thing, but rather a church-santioned one. Oddly, churches often have different ceremonies. In the US, I don't think that there are really any specific requirements for the ceremony, but I know that in some countries, people of certain faiths must be married twice because the government doesn't recognize the specific religious ceremony. If that's the case, they is there any reason for the state to call it a "marriage license"? Let them call it a "licence of union" and let religions perform the marriage (or not) as they see fit.

 

[Oversoul]

The fact is, it changed. Whether it was for the worse or the better is largely irrelevant. Almost any change is going to be seen as better by some and worse by others. But again, it comes down to how the change occurred. In this case, the system was circumvented.
No, I'm commenting on the definitions around which the two parties are named. I'm fully aware that the tenants of each party have changed significantly over the years.

But EVERYTHING changes. Change isn't going to be stopped.

Okay - Proposition 22. Propositions tend to be these wordy affairs that no one can really understand and that have to be picked apart under a microscope. Proposition 22, on the other hand, was a simple 14 words stating, in effect, that marriage in California is only valid and recognized as being between a man and a woman. Call it an agenda, but there are certainly no "hidden agendas".

Sure.

I'm not sure of the history that led to prop 22, but I know that some judge or group of judges decided that gay and lesbian couples should be able to be married in California, so they decided to go ahead and start doing that, leading to proposition 22 being put on the ballot in 2000, where it passed with 61% support of the voters. Thing is, California already affords all legal rights to domestic partnerships that married people possess, so it's not about limiting the rights of gay and lesbian couples.

I didn't read the entire text of the decision when overturning proposition 22 because it is way too long, but I read through enough of it to get to the important sections. Basically, the California Supreme Court conceded that 1) all legal rights were already available, and 2) there is no legal reason why the name provided gay and lesbian couples needed to be the same as for traditional couples.

I don't know about California, but nationwide there's a problem with "separate but equal." Think Brown v. Board of Education. It wasn't brought up with Proposition 22 though, in any case.

Effectively, the judges didn't do their job. Instead of interpreting law, they weren't happy about proposition 22 and allowed their politics to influence their decision. They themselves awknowledge that it isn't even a legal question because by legal measurements, proposition 22 is constitutional.

So they seriously said that even though there was no constitutional problem with the initiative, that they were striking it down because they didn't like it. I'm skeptical that a state supreme court would actually do that.

And concerning the origin of marriage - I think it is sufficient that we agree that it shouldn't be a state-stanctioned thing, but rather a church-santioned one. Oddly, churches often have different ceremonies. In the US, I don't think that there are really any specific requirements for the ceremony, but I know that in some countries, people of certain faiths must be married twice because the government doesn't recognize the specific religious ceremony. If that's the case, they is there any reason for the state to call it a "marriage license"? Let them call it a "licence of union" and let religions perform the marriage (or not) as they see fit.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Spiderman]

You know, taking a step back, my pastor had a great sermon last Sunday titled "Who Cares". It basically said that people tend to sweat the small stuff when in the larger picture, it doesn't really matter. I find it kinda applicable here because does it really matter whether one is called husband and wife or Person A and Person B? You have two people who love and care for each other and want to publicly express that commitment. The designations are really just for paper and I guess "politically correct", but the people involved know what this whole act of getting a piece of paper means to them.

So is the problem with the designations of husband and wife to Person A and Person B or is the problem with homosexual couple wanting to marry? If the latter, I still find the sermon applicable because Who Cares whether two people, who largely don't affect you in any way, want to get married? Why is it necessary to pass judgement on people simply because they are different from you? It just seems contrary to Christian teachings, which is basically (from Jesus's time) supposed to be loving and neighborly. Instead you have exclusitivity and intolerance.

 

[mythosx]

I tend to agree with you who cares sentiments spidey. It really isn't any of our business what others do. However, the problem is that the government stepped in and is trying to tell us how to define a marriage. People can do what ever they want. The problem is that the government is telling me that I have to like it and agree with it now....And there lies the problem.

 

[Spiderman]

But let me ask you this: *Why* is the definition of marriage so important? To you, personally, not all the legal ramifactions, etc.

A corollary is how the government is telling you that you have to like it and agree with it, but that's kinda minor.

 

[BigBlue]

One comment on the "religious" vs Government Marriage...

Regardless of it's origin... In the US, you have to go to the government to be "legally" married... you can't simply visit a pastor and have it carry any legal weight.

I've stumbled into acquaintences who know firsthand how polygamy works here in MT as well as in Oregon etc... It's really quite ridiculous, they marry one person, and then simply father children with the other women and spend time with them... The true beauty of it, is in most cases, the "Single" moms get on welfare programs and take advantage of their "Single" Head of Household status as much as they can... And the Men often provide them with very limited support... And I would bet it's impossible to get official child support from those fathers since exposing them would be expulsion from religion, and almost always it's a family thing, so your family would disown you too...

Ain't it Great! Wish I'd have thought of that... course, convincing one's spouse who doesn't belong to a fanatical religion that it's ok is probably impossible... I'm surprised that most of them are legally married to 1 woman... why bother?

 

[mythosx]

Spidey, the reason why its so important is my children. I currently don't have children. I work alot of church youth. The problem lies with the fact that they are saying I can't teach my future children and the church youth our beliefs. They are saying my definition or another persons definition is not valid. There is actually a huge religious ramification to the concept of a marriage. It would be like the government stepping in and saying lets redefine "genesis" or "creation".

I would prefer not to see any state recognition, tax incentive, inheretence laws at all from the government. Then they can't tell me what to do about marriage.

 

[BigBlue]

Mythosx.... who is "They"... And which beliefs are you teaching that your are being denied by "them"? just curious...

 

[Spiderman]

I'm assuming "they" is the government, but yeah, how exactly are they saying you can't teach your children or youth your beliefs?

 

[Mooseman]

I think he is referring to "gay" behavior. Is it discriminatory to preach against this kind of behavior?