Gay And Interracial Marriage

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287151615' post='2179756']
Thank you for finally admitting what you first denied out right. Namely that the US is a liberal democracy.[/quote]
I admit that if you wish to be inexact, you may say that.



[quote]Actually I'm still waiting for you to dish out something of substance. So far you've denied that America is a liberal democracy, I've had to explain to you that it is, you've accepted that America is a liberal democracy ("according to its founding documents") and you've asked me to define two terms for you that I learnt in my year 10 politics class.

I pointed out that you avoided answering my question by attacking my approach to theology. You respond by saying "can't take what you dish out, eh?". I'm done being petty and arguing with you over the blatantly obvious. I honestly believe you're too intelligent to continue with the side stepping and you're not one of my high school students so I'm not going to waste any more time explaining why a country with elections is democratic or a bill of rights is liberal. For the third time, Winchester, if you want to address my original points and explain what exactly it is I don't understand about your argument then please do that. I've been waiting for a while now. However if you want to continue with the ad hominems or Politics theory lessons from a 19 year old then I'm done.

God Bless
[/quote]
You wanted to snark, but not get any return fire. I get that.

You didn't explain anything. You posted articles from the interwebs, and then you snarked. Arguably, the articles are part of the snark. I could just say: "You snarked," but I won't. Except to say that I could say it.

A bill of rights isn't enough to be "liberal," unless one accepts liberal as a government that has in writing that people have rights without specifying which rights they are, how they originate and so on. That's simply not enough.

Nor may one call a government a democracy simply because it has elections. There were elections for position in some kingdoms. They remained kingdoms, but with elections. The US is a representative democracy. The reason we have more than one word is because sometimes, one word isn't enough to be truly accurate.

If you're going to be snide, then be snide. I'm cool with that. But please stop whining about getting what you give--it's unbecoming. The huffy "I'm done" is so last Thursday.

[OraProMe]

Fourth time, Winchester. Are you going to explain what part of your argument concerning gay marriage and the role of the state I apparently don't understand or not?

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287157949' post='2179776']
Fourth time, Winchester. Are you going to explain what part of your argument concerning gay marriage and the role of the state I apparently don't understand or not?
[/quote]
Ah ah ahhhhh...
[img]http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2009/02/the-count2.jpg[/img]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287137109' post='2179726']
This is just plain wrong. America is a liberal democracy. You even have a bill of rights. I'm a 19 year old foreigner so if I know this then so should you.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/liberal_democracy.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339037/liberal-democracy
[i]
"But even if it did, it does come into the equation for Catholics. We can never set aside our Catholicity."[/i]

That's my point, the liberal democratic character of the state comes before any "Catholic" character of the state. In fact if the state had a "Catholic" character then it wouldn't be secular (or constitutional). Any catholicity in American politics should only come from the beliefs of certain individuals involved in the political architecture, Catholicism or Catholic morality (gay sex is wrong) has no inherent place in the politics of a secular, liberal and democratic country like America. Its presence should only be due to the fact that the country has a representative form of government and thus represents the interests and values of a portion of its population (Christian) who are free to vote for candidates who share their opposition to homosexuality. However, even then, the democratic nature of the state must be subject to the liberal character of the state. The dictatorship of the majority is not a good thing.

Impose catholic morality on catholics, fine. But you can't legislate something that finds its basis in religious morality for the entire population without infringing on the principle of the separation of Church and State.

If you don't like gay marriage then don't get one, basically.
[/quote]
We are a republic with representational government, we are not a democracy. Our country was BUILT on christian principles, the Bill of Rights is a result of the growth of the concept of individual rights first championed in the 15 th century by Spanish theologians. You are also confused about the phrase "separation of church and state". Its not in the founding documents, the actual phrasing in Article One is here: [color="#4169E1"]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/color] If you want an in-depth discussion of this topic, watch the PBS series God in America which just aired this week. http://video.pbs.org/video/1610726967/

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287094226' post='2179641']
The fact that you view gay sex as immoral shouldn't really come into the equation. Catholics believe homosexual acts are immoral and that the state shouldn't sanction immorality. I just wish that's what people would say rather than making up all these pseudo-arguments about gay marriage being bad for society or whatever. The state doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make decisions from a religious viewpoint. While Catholics are certainly allowed to be involved in politics the actual teachings of the Catholic Church as a whole should not influence legislation in a LIBERAL democracy.
[/quote]
You are simply dead wrong here, on a number of counts.

The truth is you can't separate morality from legislation or how one votes, and you can't artificially separate morality from religion.

There's absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits one from voting according to his moral beliefs, regardless of what religion or lack of religion may influence his moral beliefs (or lack thereof). One's religious or irreligious views will doubtlessly influence how he votes what he sees as right and wrong, but you can't artificially separate "religious" views of morality from "secular" views, nor can you prohibit anyone from voting according to his moral beliefs, whether they be influenced by Judaeo-Christian morality or secularist hedonism (as yours are).

And opposition to homosexual behavior and "gay marriage" is not some doctrine peculiar to Catholicism, nor even Christianity. Catholics, "conservative" Protestants, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews would all be opposed to the idea of homosexual "marriage," as would be a number of non-religious persons as well. Even Thomas Jefferson, a deist who denied Christ's divinity, recommended that homosexual sodomy be punished by castration.

I can pardon your ignorance, since you're not American, but all of the American founding fathers would have found your statements that morality, or even "religious" morality should have no place in law or voting absurd.
[b]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams, October 11, 1798

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~ Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence, 1800

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” ~ Patrick Henry

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution"), 1778

"...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." George Washington, from his Farewell Address[/b]


And nowhere did any of the American founding fathers describe their new republic as a "liberal democracy." The only time any of them wrote of democracy was to condemn it.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: "We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

John Adams: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

Edited October 15, 2010 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287137109' post='2179726']


If you don't like gay marriage then don't get one, basically.
[/quote]
If you don't like (or understand) American Constitutional law, then don't move to America, basically.

[havok579257]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287157949' post='2179776']
Fourth time, Winchester. Are you going to explain what part of your argument concerning gay marriage and the role of the state I apparently don't understand or not?
[/quote]


the state has no responsibility for gays to get married because gay marriage does not help promote the states ultimate goal... the promise of a future generations. two gay people getting married can not produce a child. two hetero people can. the state has a responsibility to promote its own future. gay marriage does nothing for it.

and on top of it, allowing gay marriage is all about tax breaks and money. nothing else.

[MithLuin]

Blah, blah, blah....

[b]OraProMe[/b], I understand what you are saying about wishing people would be honest and straightforward. Politics involves a lot of cute word games where people come up with weird ways of saying what they want...and lots of false reasons. For instance, they want to get slots in our area, and so people say things like 'vote for jobs and revenue!' or 'money for schools!' rather than mention gambling. Annoying, when you just want to talk about the actual issue.

The thing is, the Catholic Church [i]does[/i] feel that the issue of gay relationships impacts society. Marriage has been terribly eroded in this country since the 1960s. Most kids are raised in broken homes, there's lots of deadbeat dads, and the government spends more time worrying about who is paying child support than who is actually raising their own children. It's...bizarre in a lot of ways. Society's understanding of marriage as being about the wishes of the adults without much concern for the children is troubling.

Catholics don't view gay relationships as a strictly private issue with no impact on others....nor do we see our reasoning as being strictly about religious morality. Our understanding of human nature doesn't suggest that homosexual relationships are disordered [i]for Christians[/i]...but that they are disordered [i]for humans[/i]. In other words, the rules aren't just for 'us', and really apply to everyone. And therefore...there are consequences for going against those rules (natural consequences), that aren't really much fun for anyone involved.

A law that makes sodomy illegal would be about the behavior of the couple and it would be difficult to argue how that isn't about the morality of sexual acts.

But a law about extending marriage to gay couples is more about who makes a 'family', the most basic unit of society. It's a social, civil issue, and the Church isn't 'playing games' for saying so. If the Catholic Church made some effort to hide its view that homosexual sexual relationships are sinful, then I would agree that the arguments are deceitful. But...she doesn't. Everyone knows that. Not surprisingly, when discussing a question of civil society, people use arguments about civil society. We're not 'really' arguing about something else...the Church has actually a fairly well developed philosophy about how families build a society.

Certainly, not everyone has to agree with the Church (I mean, nonCatholics). But the arguments are real arguments, not smokescreen.

I realize this is a highly charged issue, and you are certainly welcome to voice your frustration with how the arguments are typically presented.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287154297' post='2179761']
The United States is a Republic. A true democracy is where every person has a vote on every issue. That would be quite difficult with the present complexity of government. A republic is where we elect people to vote for us, and hope they will represent us well. There is a dramatic difference. In a democracy, the animosity in government caused by party representation would be eliminated. Special interest groups wouldn't be able to "finance" their interests into a majority vote over the desires of the majority of citizens.
[/quote]
this.

[Winchester]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1287296126' post='2180140']
this.
[/quote]
You do realize you're opposing a 19 year old armed with interwebs articles, right? Do you really want to fight such a foe?

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287319075' post='2180160']
You do realize you're opposing a 19 year old armed with interwebs articles, right? Do you really want to fight such a foe?
[/quote]


I posted the articles to give you something to read if you still wanted to argue. I learnt about liberal democracy at university. You make it sound like I just cut and pasted massive portions of an article rather than providing my own arguments which isn't true. I wasn't trying to be rude, but you wouldn't answer my question (and still haven't). After accusing me of not understanding your argument you've constantly refused to explain it to me, despite my numerous requests, and continue to post unhelpful comments like the one above.

I'm not sure how we got onto the topic of liberal democracy and if you want to create a thread about the role of democracy and liberalism in America then I'd be happy to engage you there as it's an interesting discussion. Over here i'm still waiting for you to get back to the original topic and respond to my objections. The last time I asked you to get back on track you responded with a picture of a puppet vampire so I realize I'm probably wasting my breath but I've been trying to engage with you on an intellectual level for the last few posts now. You should spend less time ridiculing me and more time responding to my questions, although I understand that that might not earn you as many laughs.

Edited October 17, 2010 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1287278339' post='2180094']
Blah, blah, blah....

[b]OraProMe[/b], I understand what you are saying about wishing people would be honest and straightforward. Politics involves a lot of cute word games where people come up with weird ways of saying what they want...and lots of false reasons. For instance, they want to get slots in our area, and so people say things like 'vote for jobs and revenue!' or 'money for schools!' rather than mention gambling. Annoying, when you just want to talk about the actual issue.

The thing is, the Catholic Church [i]does[/i] feel that the issue of gay relationships impacts society. Marriage has been terribly eroded in this country since the 1960s. Most kids are raised in broken homes, there's lots of deadbeat dads, and the government spends more time worrying about who is paying child support than who is actually raising their own children. It's...bizarre in a lot of ways. Society's understanding of marriage as being about the wishes of the adults without much concern for the children is troubling.

Catholics don't view gay relationships as a strictly private issue with no impact on others....nor do we see our reasoning as being strictly about religious morality. Our understanding of human nature doesn't suggest that homosexual relationships are disordered [i]for Christians[/i]...but that they are disordered [i]for humans[/i]. In other words, the rules aren't just for 'us', and really apply to everyone. And therefore...there are consequences for going against those rules (natural consequences), that aren't really much fun for anyone involved.

A law that makes sodomy illegal would be about the behavior of the couple and it would be difficult to argue how that isn't about the morality of sexual acts.

But a law about extending marriage to gay couples is more about who makes a 'family', the most basic unit of society. It's a social, civil issue, and the Church isn't 'playing games' for saying so. If the Catholic Church made some effort to hide its view that homosexual sexual relationships are sinful, then I would agree that the arguments are deceitful. But...she doesn't. Everyone knows that. Not surprisingly, when discussing a question of civil society, people use arguments about civil society. We're not 'really' arguing about something else...the Church has actually a fairly well developed philosophy about how families build a society.

Certainly, not everyone has to agree with the Church (I mean, nonCatholics). But the arguments are real arguments, not smokescreen.

I realize this is a highly charged issue, and you are certainly welcome to voice your frustration with how the arguments are typically presented.
[/quote]

Thank you for this post.

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1287321688' post='2180164']You should spend less time ridiculing me and more time responding to my questions, although I understand that that might not earn you as many laughs.
[/quote]
You're just mad that you started being an arse and I am now schooling you in assness. Now you're whining, in addition to being sloppy with political terminology.

[OraProMe]

Okay Winchester.

[Winchester]

Thank you for admitting I out-assed you.