4588686 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1332561193' post='2406905'] There are some basic rights about which the Courts have not yet determined.[/QUOTE] Says who? You? Have you been elected to any office? Does the constitution grant you the right to determine which rights have and have not yet been determined? [QUOTE]A person has a right not to be enslaved, but it took SCOTUS almost 100 years to accept that, and then it was only by Constitutional Amendment that their opinion was changed. [/QUOTE] No, it did not. Because prior to the 13th Amendment there was no right in the constitution protecting individuals from being held in bondage. In fact, prior to the 13th Amendment the constitution explicitly recognized the institution of slavery. Prior to the later 19th century there was no right to not be enslaved for the courts to recognize. [QUOTE] I can talk about rights, but you cannot limit me to only what SCOTUS or our Constitution has determined. [/QUOTE] Yes I can. You don't live in a Catholic theocracy. You live in the United States and you are attempting to get the state to use its power to influence individuals regarding their personal sexual conduct. If you want to say that gays can't mary in a Catholic Church or have their union recognized by the Catholic Church then you can refer to whatever you want. But if you want to use the power of the state then you are ipso facto limited, ultimately, by the Constitution. [QUOTE] Certain human rights are inalienable and may be illuminated by my Catholicism, but I don't make these arguments simply on a Catholic basis. [/QUOTE] Ok. Then prove to me that they exist with arguments not resting on a Catholic basis. [QUOTE] Here I can pull out a SCOTUS ruling that child's rights are first. There is a hierarchy of rights as well, first being the right to life (not always accepted in our country, particularly before birth). Next is a child's right to safety. Then we can speak about stability, etc. [/QUOTE] ? [QUOTE] But now you have shown your slavery to the courts and our government. Rather than being free to determine rights, you are held back by court decisions. [/QUOTE] No. I am held by the laws of the state I chose to live in. That's how a state works. [QUOTE] Secondly, there is a difference to interracial marriage and heterosexual marriage that doesn't allow for your analogy. You would have to use interspecies marriage to come up with a more appropriate analogy, but then that would prove my point. The sexual distinction between men and women transcends even species differences. We recognize female and male dogs, dolphins, etc. In almost all animals this distinction is necessary and the union between male and female is something unique. This is demonstrated by simple science: the union between a male and a female IN GENERAL (forget accidental differences; we're looking at the ideal and the general understanding here) offers the chance for life. This in itself is unique because no other natural union can compare. Therefore, as much as we can talk about the other reasons for marrying, the union between a male and a female will always have something no other relationship can. If you go into how two women can become pregnant, it's not the same action and therefore it's not on the same level. This last example would be analogous to saying that a person in a wheelchair is moving in the same manner a runner moves. On top of this, I see sexual differences as extending further than the ability to procreate. Each sex brings something unique to a relationship. Unfortunately I cannot really make this argument because our society is bent on making sure that they don't bring something different, but in every marriage I have ever known between a man and a woman, each person had something different to offer simply because of their sex. Unfortunately, good empirical datum of this sort is unacceptable to most modern discussions.[/QUOTE] My analogy works fine. By your logic the state can ban interracial marriage. In fact your argument was used to defend the bans. After all, the bigots argued, everybody has the right to marry an individual of the same race. [QUOTE] I won't really make this argument, but I would suggest that the gay couple and the polygamous couple are hurting themselves. [/quote] Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) That bigot comment was not referring to you. I was referring to the arguments used by the courts and others to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the bans on interracial marriage. Edited March 24, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332565746' post='2406938'] That's fine. But the Church is not above the state. At least not legally. If you want to believe that it is then that's fine. But that is meaningless when you are speaking to somebody who does not recognize your Church as the Vicar of Christ. [/quote] What's ironic is that the existence of marriage laws has placed the Church under the thumb of the state, in this case. Priests will not administer the Sacrament without a permission slip from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 A man and woman and get a license to get married, can get married in the church same-sex couples can get a license to get married, cannot get married the church A Catholic man and woman can get divorced, cannot get divorced in the church Same-sex couples can get a divorce.  End of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1332588237' post='2406977'] A man and woman and get a license to get married, can get married in the church same-sex couples can get a license to get married, cannot get married the church A Catholic man and woman can get divorced, cannot get divorced in the church Same-sex couples can get a divorce. End of story [/quote] Yeah, except that THAT story isn't based on reality. There is no "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in [/color][color=#000000]most states.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332599670' post='2407005'] Yeah, except that THAT story isn't based on reality. There is no "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" in [/color][color=#000000]most states.[/color] [/quote] the concept of "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" isn't based on ( institution of marriage) reality, either[/color] Edited March 24, 2012 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1332601364' post='2407025'] the concept of "sa[color=#000000]me-sex [/color][color=#000000]marriage" isn't based on reality, either[/color] [/quote] OOOOO snap, you're so witty and s[color=#282828]mart! But really, leave the gays alone. Let the[/color][color=#282828]m do what they want and put the[/color][color=#282828]m out of your [/color][color=#282828]mind. [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332566450' post='2406940'] Says who? You? Have you been elected to any office? Does the constitution grant you the right to determine which rights have and have not yet been determined? No, it did not. Because prior to the 13th Amendment there was no right in the constitution protecting individuals from being held in bondage. In fact, prior to the 13th Amendment the constitution explicitly recognized the institution of slavery. Prior to the later 19th century there was no right to not be enslaved for the courts to recognize. Yes I can. You don't live in a Catholic theocracy. You live in the United States and you are attempting to get the state to use its power to influence individuals regarding their personal sexual conduct. If you want to say that gays can't mary in a Catholic Church or have their union recognized by the Catholic Church then you can refer to whatever you want. But if you want to use the power of the state then you are ipso facto limited, ultimately, by the Constitution. Ok. Then prove to me that they exist with arguments not resting on a Catholic basis.[/quote] I'll let another man speak for me: [quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote] While this statement and document don't hold the weight of law in our country like the Constitution, none of these rights is really mentioned in the Constitution. Yet you'll have a hard time finding people arguing against the Declaration of Independence in court. What's my point here? It's that certain rights are inalienable and self-evident and I don't necessarily have to have the weight of the law behind me to make an argument for them. I know I haven't proven anything here, except the basis that I can argue for rights without recourse to law. Interestingly enough, the Declaration of Independence proves that people have a right to liberty (a right not to be enslaved) without the Constitution backing them up. The way our country got around this in the first place was to define people as less than people. Again, this is self-evidently contradictory. You can't legitimately define a person as not a person or less than a person. To do so is completely unjust. Our country came around to realize this after a while. What does all this mean? Certain rights are implied and can be determined on a rational basis before the government recognizes them. As a rational people we are bound to recognize these rights and ought to make sure that they are not infringed. If you're willing to accept that rights exist outside of Catholic or political discourse and can be recognized without recourse to either, then we can talk about how to recognize these rights. [quote]No. I am held by the laws of the state I chose to live in. That's how a state works.[/quote]You are bound to follow laws, but that wasn't my comment. What I meant was that if the courts or the government don't define rights for you, you don't accept these rights. Rational discourse can make use of laws, but I don't think that rights are solely determined by the government before they exist. I believe that there are rights in a political sense and human rights that are inalienable, as stated by the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers believed the same thing, and I'd like to say that they were right in that respect. [quote]My analogy works fine. By your logic the state can ban interracial marriage. In fact your argument was used to defend the bans. After all, the bigots argued, everybody has the right to marry an individual of the same race.[/quote]I don't believe that the analogy is legitimate, no matter who used it or how they used it. Sexual differences don't fall under the same category of type/species distinctions. This particular distinction (between men and women) is so great that it transcends the differences between whole species and even genera. If I look at a dolphin I can tell you which one is male and which one is female. That's how great the differences are between men and women. And just to make sure I don't get trapped in a corner: I don't think that the difference between men and women is merely physical, though it is evidenced by the physical differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1332522736' post='2406181'] just because someone is motivated by blind fury, doesn't mean the object of their fury is IPSO FACTO 'good'. srsly.. it's been a while since someone's inserted IPSO FACTO in a while.. hope y'all don't mind that I stepped up. [/quote] 1:50-2:15: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 [quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1332640898' post='2407396'] 1:50-2:15: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkACOU_dF80[/media] [/quote] Archie Bunker was an American Hero. [img]http://www.relictees.com/Archie%20Bunker-STIFLE%20Ink-medium.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now