Post Reply
Page 46 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
3 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 9:41PM #451
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Jun 14, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


mytmouse57:  Jesus never specifically mentioned many things, but His stance on many things can be easily gleaned from what He did say.


If we want to be picky, Jesus would rather skip family life altogether.  Not only does He not respect His parents, but He also encourages His disciples to leave their families.  When Sadducees go up to Him with their little marriage + reincarnation question, Jesus specifically says that marriage is irrelevant in heaven.  So much for "holy sacrament".  According to Jesus, I own every married person 'cause I'm single and celibate.  :)




Bravo Iwanta, we can share everyone together Tongue Out

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 14, 2012 - 10:43PM #452
mountain_man
Posts: 40,545

Jun 14, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Iwantamotto wrote:

If we want to be picky, Jesus would rather skip family life altogether.  Not only does He not respect His parents, but He also encourages His disciples to leave their families.....


If we want to get even more picky, and correct, what Jesus had to say about anything is irrelevant to this topic. Our laws are not based on what people believe he said, or what they make up about what they wanted him to say. But he did say something about if you love your family you can't love him.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 10:43AM #453
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 14, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


mytmouse57:  Jesus never specifically mentioned many things, but His stance on many things can be easily gleaned from what He did say.


If we want to be picky, Jesus would rather skip family life altogether.  Not only does He not respect His parents, but He also encourages His disciples to leave their families.  When Sadducees go up to Him with their little marriage + reincarnation question, Jesus specifically says that marriage is irrelevant in heaven.  So much for "holy sacrament".  According to Jesus, I pwn every married person 'cause I'm single and celibate.  :)




That's a misrepresentation, IMO.


I think Jesus wasn't big on marriage for Him, or his disciples.


Marriage and family wouldn't have fit in very well with His/their mission. What, with the constant travel, life of poverty, and extremely high likelyhood of martyrdom. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 10:44AM #454
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 14, 2012 -- 2:43PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


You're hitting a few different points.


Legally, I have no opinon -- nor do I think I should have any say -- either way regarding gay marriage.


Therefore, "prohibiting" it, isn't an issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's for the courts to sort out. I've merely been offering a critical view of what I see as some of the philosphical points relating to it. Specifically, the whole "equality" thing -- which I consider to be purely imaginary.



Prohibiting is an issue because Section 3 of DOMA explicitly states that:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’
‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’
means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’


Such wording denies the federal government to consider same-sex unions to be considered "marriage" thereby denying them the rights to the 1,138 federal statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges."


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

On the principle of rights, I absolutely disagree with the notion that gay marriage is a human right, and again, I think an essentially dishonest and irrational narrative has been employed to try framing it in those terms.



I agree with John Stuart Mill who wrote:

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, Chapter 1 (1859)



Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As far as it being a civil right, due inclusion and protection under secular law, again, the courts will have to sort that out. So far, the courts have tended to lean in favor of it.



So far in the only Appeals Court decision to directly address DOMA was made in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In both cases the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Joseph L. Tauro's decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As for it causing harm? Time will tell. On the macro level -- the one that primarily matters in terms of civil rights under secular law -- I don't see it causing widespread harm, or, as some have wildly tried to claim, causing society to collapse.



I agree.


Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

As far as the Constitution, again, ultimately SCOTUS will probably have to decide if gay marriage falls under the parameters of the Loving case, and the parameters of the 14th Amendment.



SCOTUS has basically two choices. They can grant cert. and rule on the First Circuit decision, or they can refuse cert. and let the First Circuit decision stand and avoid getting involved. If they take the case and Justice Kennedy holds the same position he held when he wrote the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas, SCOUS will affirm the First Circuit in a 5-4 decision.




I think in general, we agree more than we disagree. 


The specifics, again, will probably be worked out by the courts. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 12:10PM #455
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Jun 14, 2012 -- 10:43PM, mountain_man wrote:


 If we want to get even more picky, and correct, what Jesus had to say about anything is irrelevant to this topic. Our laws are not based on what people believe he said, or what they make up about what they wanted him to say. But he did say something about if you love your family you can't love him.




This is very true.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 12:39PM #456
Stardove
Posts: 15,944

mytmouse:


1: The differences between men and women, and how they compliment and reinforce one another in parenting.


2: The importance of having both a mother and father.


3: The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.


It should be self-evident -- children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- in general terms -- will have advantages other children simply do not.



When I was pregnant with my third child my husband was killed in an auto collision. 


Three months later I am a widow with three children. How exactly does your picture of what a family is work for someone like myself who no longer had a partner to raise the children they created together?

Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community

The sun rises every morning and sheds light, vanquishing the night's darkness. The rooster also rises every morning only, unlike the sun, he simply makes noise. But the darkness of the night is dispelled by sunshine, not by the rooster's crowing.The world can use more light and less noise. Where I can, I want to be light.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 1:18PM #457
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 15, 2012 -- 12:39PM, Stardove wrote:


mytmouse:


1: The differences between men and women, and how they compliment and reinforce one another in parenting.


2: The importance of having both a mother and father.


3: The importance of having an opposite-gender parent.


It should be self-evident -- children in happily married, biological mother-father homes -- in general terms -- will have advantages other children simply do not.



When I was pregnant with my third child my husband was killed in an auto collision. 


Three months later I am a widow with three children. How exactly does your picture of what a family is work for someone like myself who no longer had a partner to raise the children they created together?




And I'm the co-parent of five children -- ages pre-school to young adult -- only one of which is biologically mine, none of which are both my wife's and mine together, and one of which is neither of ours, biologically.


In other words, please pay attention to the whole of what I'm saying, in context, instead of making objections to only something I say, and trying to make it as if I'm claiming things I'm not. 


Not to pick on you, personally, but that's happened numerous times on this thread, and I'm weary of it. 


I said, clearly, the circumstances of life are unpredictable, and alternative family structures work. And, in many cases, work very well.


I never, ever said everybody has to conform to only one idea.


Now that those things are, I hope, abundantly clear...


My point all along is, tying to pretend as if those aforementioned factors unique to boilogical mother-father parenting either simply are not real, or really don't matter, is naive and pandering. 


As reasonable people, we have to acknowledge, that in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father households, will have advantages that other children do not. Therefore, society has, for good reason, favored and privledged that arrangment. 


That is in no way shape or form intended as a slight against gay, single, divorced, widowed, foster, step or adoptive parents -- or grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children, for that matter.


It's simply an anknowledgment of fact. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 3:28PM #458
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

Jun 15, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


And I'm the co-parent of five children -- ages pre-school to young adult -- only one of which is biologically mine, none of which are both my wife's and mine together, and one of which is neither of ours, biologically.


In other words, please pay attention to the whole of what I'm saying, in context, instead of making objections to only something I say, and trying to make it as if I'm claiming things I'm not. 


Not to pick on you, personally, but that's happened numerous times on this thread, and I'm weary of it. 


I said, clearly, the circumstances of life are unpredictable, and alternative family structures work. And, in many cases, work very well.


I never, ever said everybody has to conform to only one idea.


Now that those things are, I hope, abundantly clear...


My point all along is, tying to pretend as if those aforementioned factors unique to boilogical mother-father parenting either simply are not real, or really don't matter, is naive and pandering. 


As reasonable people, we have to acknowledge, that in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father households, will have advantages that other children do not. Therefore, society has, for good reason, favored and privledged that arrangment. 



And when you provide some objective evidence that this is true we will consider it.



That is in no way shape or form intended as a slight against gay, single, divorced, widowed, foster, step or adoptive parents -- or grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children, for that matter.


It's simply an anknowledgment of fact. 



Except that you have not presented it as fact. You have only presented your subjective opinion that these things are better. When you were presented with scientific studies disproving your claims you hand-waved them away by claiming they were "soft science." When asked to provide any empirical evidence in support of your claim, you failed to produce anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 4:24PM #459
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 15, 2012 -- 3:28PM, Sigmund wrote:


Jun 15, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


And I'm the co-parent of five children -- ages pre-school to young adult -- only one of which is biologically mine, none of which are both my wife's and mine together, and one of which is neither of ours, biologically.


In other words, please pay attention to the whole of what I'm saying, in context, instead of making objections to only something I say, and trying to make it as if I'm claiming things I'm not. 


Not to pick on you, personally, but that's happened numerous times on this thread, and I'm weary of it. 


I said, clearly, the circumstances of life are unpredictable, and alternative family structures work. And, in many cases, work very well.


I never, ever said everybody has to conform to only one idea.


Now that those things are, I hope, abundantly clear...


My point all along is, tying to pretend as if those aforementioned factors unique to boilogical mother-father parenting either simply are not real, or really don't matter, is naive and pandering. 


As reasonable people, we have to acknowledge, that in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father households, will have advantages that other children do not. Therefore, society has, for good reason, favored and privledged that arrangment. 



And when you provide some objective evidence that this is true we will consider it.



That is in no way shape or form intended as a slight against gay, single, divorced, widowed, foster, step or adoptive parents -- or grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children, for that matter.


It's simply an anknowledgment of fact. 



Except that you have not presented it as fact. You have only presented your subjective opinion that these things are better. When you were presented with scientific studies disproving your claims you hand-waved them away by claiming they were "soft science." When asked to provide any empirical evidence in support of your claim, you failed to produce anything.




Appealing to studies done on sample populations against specific critera, as being totally dismissive of universal axioms, imbedded in biology, is neither scientific or rational. 


Just for starters, they are far too many circumstantial variables. 



Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2012 - 4:30PM #460
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

Jun 15, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 15, 2012 -- 3:28PM, Sigmund wrote:


Jun 15, 2012 -- 1:18PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


And I'm the co-parent of five children -- ages pre-school to young adult -- only one of which is biologically mine, none of which are both my wife's and mine together, and one of which is neither of ours, biologically.


In other words, please pay attention to the whole of what I'm saying, in context, instead of making objections to only something I say, and trying to make it as if I'm claiming things I'm not. 


Not to pick on you, personally, but that's happened numerous times on this thread, and I'm weary of it. 


I said, clearly, the circumstances of life are unpredictable, and alternative family structures work. And, in many cases, work very well.


I never, ever said everybody has to conform to only one idea.


Now that those things are, I hope, abundantly clear...


My point all along is, tying to pretend as if those aforementioned factors unique to boilogical mother-father parenting either simply are not real, or really don't matter, is naive and pandering. 


As reasonable people, we have to acknowledge, that in general terms, children in happily married, biological mother-father households, will have advantages that other children do not. Therefore, society has, for good reason, favored and privledged that arrangment. 



And when you provide some objective evidence that this is true we will consider it.



That is in no way shape or form intended as a slight against gay, single, divorced, widowed, foster, step or adoptive parents -- or grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children, for that matter.


It's simply an anknowledgment of fact. 



Except that you have not presented it as fact. You have only presented your subjective opinion that these things are better. When you were presented with scientific studies disproving your claims you hand-waved them away by claiming they were "soft science." When asked to provide any empirical evidence in support of your claim, you failed to produce anything.




Appealing to studies done on sample populations against specific critera, as being totally dismissive of universal axioms, imbedded in biology, is neither scientific or rational.



The very fact that homosexuals exist proves that it is not a universal maxim.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 46 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook