Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Marriage is a Catholic sacrament.

It's also a Hindu sacrament, a gealic sacrament, a jewish sacrament, and a Muslim sacrament. Who are you to define what consittutes a marriage for those people based on your religion?

I don't. I was responding to a question:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Is is control of religion, or control of marriage?

By demanding a legal re-definition of marriage, isn't the homosexual community confirming the government's power over the institution?

I thought you said that marriage is religoius?

Now you want to turn it into an attack on other religions?

The 16th and 17th. Both were enacted during the "Progressive Era" along with the 18th and 19th.

Hunster, please read the ammendments you're talking about. The 16th ammendment formalized the shift from state to federal power that was the central issue of the Civil War.

Hmmmmmmm:

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 18th ammendment is the prohibition of alcohol, which was driven by religious zealots just like you.

Obviously, not "just like me".

As for the 19th, are you a neanderthal? Please explain exactly what problem you have with voting rights for women.

Actually, I might very well be a neanderthal. I obviously don't fit in this world, and have retreated back into a primival wilderness, hunt for my meat, and am quite warlike.

So?

As for the 19th, I didn't write that I opposed it. I wrote that I didn't like the 16th and 17th, and that those two had passed during what many have called "The Progressive Era", which turned out to be a bit more "progressive" than the nation could stand. The 18th Amendment was repealed, there has been many political battles since regarding income taxation, and the states have lost considerable power since U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures.

 

[HeavyAaron]

This would also give single miltiary personnel a higher DI than married ones, giving miltiary personnel a further disincentive to joining if they have or plan on having families. When an employer extends the the option of insurance for spouses and families to employees less than 100% take it. The money saved from those who do not take it is redistributed to those who do. Ergo, those who need the service get more of it and those who do not don't get it. It's an effective system for the allocation of a precious resource which ensures that those who need it get more than they would under laize-faire free market systems.

We agree on the effects, but differ on our values. This is another example of how single people are discriminated against, in my oppinion. There is no reason for the military to pay more and provide more benifits to married people than single people. I've known people in marriages of convenience in the military just for the increases in compensation.

Married people are not more valuable to the military, and in fact may be less valuable to the military. There is certainly no justifiable (in my mind) reason to compensate single soldiers less than married ones.

Aaron

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Now you want to turn it into an attack on other religions?

Huntster, we're talking about the law, not religion.

Hmmmmmmm:





Obviously, not "just like me".



Actually, I might very well be a neanderthal. I obviously don't fit in this world, and have retreated back into a primival wilderness, hunt for my meat, and am quite warlike.

So?

As for the 19th, I didn't write that I opposed it. I wrote that I didn't like the 16th and 17th, and that those two had passed during what many have called "The Progressive Era", which turned out to be a bit more "progressive" than the nation could stand. The 18th Amendment was repealed, there has been many political battles since regarding income taxation, and the states have lost considerable power since U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures.

So what do your opinions on these four Ammendments have to do with the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Marriage is a Catholic sacrament.

So, if marriage is a catholic sacrament and the government, as you imply, controls marriage, then the government is controlling a religious (or Catholic, if you prefer) sacrament. If the government control religious sacrament, the government is controlling religion.

Do you want government to be able to tell you what your religion can or cannot be and what you can do or not do in worship of it?

That has already been done. As we have already discussed, government pressured the Church of Latter Day Saints to end their practice of polygamy. With regard to marriage as a Roman Catholic sacrament, it is "until death do you part". That is not consistent with civil law regarding divorce, and the courts allow the divorce of a marriage that may have occurred within a Roman Catholic Church with little or no consideration of the church's position.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It has already done so.

You are correct. I should have been more specific. The federal government is not allowed by the constitution to define what marriage is.

Just like the fact that the constitution should have no relation on what people drink, yet it did.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Nor should it oppose the majority's will.

Adherence to the Constitution takes precedence over the majority will every time.

And if the majority will as well as a consititutional amendment are in conformance?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Correct. It is regulated by government in accordance with the needs of the society as a whole.

You are incorrect. The regulation of religion by the government is counter to the ideals this country was founded on and the inequality it generates actually harms our society.

I am correct. Marriage is regulated by government, despite marriage being also a religious sacrament to several faiths.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I've seen Prohibition. Still do, BTW:

No, unless you are a great deal older that I imagine, all you've seen are laws that regulate the manufacture, transport, position, and consumption of alcohol. Prohibition what an attempt by a tyrannical majority to abuse the power of the Constitution by using it to try to control society. You are seeing, however, attempts to do this again by those who have not learned anything from history.

Yup. Same mantra, same goal of "saving humanity", same righteousness, same difficulties, same results, same slow realization of reality.

Some folks just never learn.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That's right; despite the 21st Amendment, the movement, sale, manufacture, and use of alcohol is prohibited in some areas of the United States.

(my emphasis)

That would be a really great argument if the 21st amendment, despite repealing the 18th amendment, didn't specifically put the responsibility of alcohol regulation in hands of State governments. Alcohol isn't illegal in some areas despite the 21st amendment, but because the 21 amendment gave the states the power to do whatever they chose on the issue.

Maybe you ought to consider learning something about what you believe before you reach your conclusions about it instead of after. Just a thought.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, the 21st Amendment is quite simple and clear, and I fully understood:

....Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited....

States rights were recognized (rarely, and thankfully).

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The 16th and 17th.

Okay, income tax, I get, but direct election of senators by the people of the state rather than by the state legislature? That surprises me, given your "majority will" mantra. What in the world do you have against the 17th amendment?

Senator Ted Stevens.

He has become a king, and has repeatedly bullied and threatened the state legislature over several issues.

The Senate was originally created with two representatives from each state (thereby giving equal power to less populous states), and the House representation is based on population.

The popular election of Senators has robbed the state legislatures of representation in Congress, and has not solved the corruption charges that was the driving force behind the 17th Amendment.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Marriage is a Catholic sacrament.

...snip...

Are you aware it wasn't for well over half the Roman Catholic Church's existence?

Yup, and still much longer ago than the creation of the United States Government.

Further:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Matthew 19:4-6

 

[Huntster]

Patterns are always interesting. ImaginalDisc constantly looks at this as trying to control other peoples' genitals. I think of it as trying to control one's own.

If you are confused, ID, I'm sure Huntster could explain. Oh, wait. He already has. Several times........

To no avail.

 

[Huntster]

....Man courts woman.

Man marries woman.

Man now control's wife's sexual choices forever with the force of law.....

Can you please define "sexual choices"?

 

[Upchurch]

Power of attorney can be contractually determined.

But not visitation rights.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Can you please define "sexual choices"?

Gladly. The choice to have and not to have sex with her husband. Meadmaker has expressed that married couples are obligated to have sex with one another. He has also expressed that extramartial sex is to be prohibted, presumably including extramrtial sex with mutual informed consent. Neither of these are currently in the body of marriage laws.

We destroyed the myth that wives must have sex with their husbands some time ago, thank goodness, because for some time it was very difficult to prosecute a husband for raping his wife.

 

[HeavyAaron]

But not visitation rights.

And round and round we go...

Let's try this again in full to break the circle:

Visitation rights, IMO, should be determined by hospital policy, not law. Power of attorny is determined contractually.

Now, where do you see the problem?

Aaron

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Now you want to turn it into an attack on other religions?

Huntster, we're talking about the law, not religion....

And:

As for the 19th, I didn't write that I opposed it. I wrote that I didn't like the 16th and 17th, and that those two had passed during what many have called "The Progressive Era", which turned out to be a bit more "progressive" than the nation could stand. The 18th Amendment was repealed, there has been many political battles since regarding income taxation, and the states have lost considerable power since U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures.

So what do your opinions on these four Ammendments have to do with the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples?

Both the religious/civil as well as the constitutional derails were answers to various positions taken by pro-SSM, who grasp at all manner of straws with which to build their building.

I suppose we could delve into the "genital" area as well, if we must.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And round and round we go...

Let's try this again in full to break the circle:

Visitation rights, IMO, should be determined by hospital policy, not law. Power of attorny is determined contractually.

Now, where do you see the problem?

Aaron

Aaron, I'm afriad it's not that simple. If I am married to someone, and they fall ill, I have the legal right to visit them and speak to them in the hosptial, because that person needs an able bodied person with power of attourney to be able to make choices on their behalf if they lose the ability to communicate. You're entirely comfortable with say, a Catholic Chruch forbidding a gay man from seeing his partner in the hospital?

 

[Upchurch]

Visitation rights, IMO, should be determined by hospital policy, not law. Power of attorny is determined contractually.

Now, where do you see the problem?

I see the problem in that under your view of visitation rights determined entirely by the hospital means that it is entirely possible for the hospital to decide, for no reason whatsoever, that I cannot see either my wife, my parents, or my children while they are in the hospital. And I would have no recourse at all.

Just because you personally don't think that visitation rights should be determined by law does not mean that they aren't determined by law and that there is no contractual means to allow a same sex partner/spouse the ability to visit their partner/spouse in the hospital should the family forbid it. It simply is not true that all aspects of legal marriage can be recreated through contracts.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Can you please define "sexual choices"?

Gladly. The choice to have and not to have sex with her husband. Meadmaker has expressed that married couples are obligated to have sex with one another.

They are. If they don't, it leads to marital trouble.

He has also expressed that extramartial sex is to be prohibted, presumably including extramrtial sex with mutual informed consent. Neither of these are currently in the body of marriage laws.

Now, that's real smart, isn't it?

This is one reason why control of marriage by government is folly.

We destroyed the myth that wives must have sex with their husbands some time ago, thank goodness, because for some time it was very difficult to prosecute a husband for raping his wife.

"We?" Who was with you when you so impressively "destroyed" that "myth?"

I suppose, since you're one who so quickly demands "evidence" (which you have difficulty in distinguishing from "proof"), you can offer us some evidence/proof/anything regarding this destruction of myth?

 

[HeavyAaron]

Aaron, I'm afriad it's not that simple. If I am married to someone, and they fall ill, I have the legal right to visit them and speak to them in the hosptial, because that person needs an able bodied person with power of attourney to be able to make choices on their behalf if they lose the ability to communicate. You're entirely comfortable with say, a Catholic Chruch forbidding a gay man from seeing his partner in the hospital?

Yep, I'm comfortable with that. You do have a choice of hospitals, you know. If you don't like the policies of one, find another.

Likewise, for profit hospitals will choose policies that would be ones that appeal to potential patients. We call this system a "free market."

Aaron

 

[Upchurch]

You do have a choice of hospitals, you know. If you don't like the policies of one, find another.

What, seriously?

Let's play a game of "What if?"

Let's say that a gay man is in a car accident and is rushed to the nearest hospital unconscious. The man's partner/spouse finds out and rushes to the hospital, but it is not the hospital's policy to allow the partner to visit the man. Now, how exactly does this couple shop for a hospital that recognizes their family relationship?

 

[HeavyAaron]

I see the problem in that under your view of visitation rights determined entirely by the hospital means that it is entirely possible for the hospital to decide, for no reason whatsoever, that I cannot see either my wife, my parents, or my children while they are in the hospital. And I would have no recourse at all.

Your power is in your selection of hospital. It's not like hospitals exist to annoy the patients such that this is a likely possibility you throw about. But if a hospital did have such a policy, I don't think they'd have it for long before filing bankruptcy or being bought out by some other entity that knows how to run a hospital.

Just because you personally don't think that visitation rights should be determined by law does not mean that they aren't determined by law and that there is no contractual means to allow a same sex partner/spouse the ability to visit their partner/spouse in the hospital should the family forbid it. It simply is not true that all aspects of legal marriage can be recreated through contracts.

Oh, I know that they are presently defined by law. And I acknoledge the state of the universe as you've defined it in this paragraph. You're welcome to disagree with me on what would be a utopia, but the fact that laws telling hospitals what their visitation policies must be would be void if the government dropped recognition of marriages is hardly going to change my mind. I consider that a side benifit, not a negative of such a change in legal recognition of marriages.

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

What, seriously?

Let's play a game of "What if?"

Let's say that a gay man is in a car accident and is rushed to the nearest hospital unconscious. The man's partner/spouse finds out and rushes to the hospital, but it is not the hospital's policy to allow the partner to visit the man. Now, how exactly does this couple shop for a hospital that recognizes their family relationship?

Do you not think that this situation already exists? Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Do they not get in car accidents and wind up unconcious in an ER?

I suppose next you'll add to your hypothetical that the person had no ID on them.

I think, but do not know, that there's no visitation in ERs anyway... ICUs, yes. But I would imagine that once a person is out of an ER that person can request a change of hospital today, if they so chose.

Honestly I think this is all a solution in search of a problem. Hospitals don't go out of thier way to instill obnoxious policies.

Aaron

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, I know that they are presently defined by law. And I acknoledge the state of the universe as you've defined it in this paragraph. You're welcome to disagree with me on what would be a utopia, but the fact that laws telling hospitals what their visitation policies must be would be void if the government dropped recognition of marriages is hardly going to change my mind. I consider that a side benifit, not a negative of such a change in legal recognition of marriages.

Way to miss the point. I was showing you how this statement is false:

Any recognition a couple wants the government to give to their marriage would be through contracts which stipulate inharitence, etc.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you not think that this situation already exists? Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Do they not get in car accidents and wind up unconcious in an ER?

I suppose next you'll add to your hypothetical that the person had no ID on them.

I think, but do not know, that there's no visitation in ERs anyway... ICUs, yes. But I would imagine that once a person is out of an ER that person can request a change of hospital today, if they so chose.

I'm not talking about the ER. I'm talking about anytime in the hospital.