We Should Be Ashamed Of Our Hatred -mature Content!

[bonkers]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1791006' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:00 AM']The government should do the will of the people and the will of the people want laws based on christian thinking. YOur stating that the government should base their laws on your beliefs, but not ours. There government should base itself off of the people's beliefs, no matter what they are.[/quote]

So abortion should be legal?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790937' date='Feb 24 2009, 11:40 PM']No, they are unconstitutional

Lawrence v Johnson I think[/quote]

Nothing is "consitutional" when the rights of the human person and their dignity are being violated. In the case of sodomy, the dignity of the human person is violated.

I just want to point out that it is [u]lame[/u] to use a single case to "prove" that they are unconstitutional.

The court is suppose to define what is constitutional and not, and should be the final word. The truth of the matter is though that the court messes up and legally covers things which, in fact, are not constitutional.

Lawrence v. Johnson does not prove that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. It just proves that the court thinks so at the moment.

The court has also thought the slaveholder's right to property sclipsed and subsumed the slave's right to freedom. (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856)

The court also said that employers' right to contract eclipsed and subsumed the workers' rights to humane conditions and hours. (Lochner v. New York, 1905)

The court also sanctioned segregation. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896)

The court also institutionalized child labor (Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918)

The court case you provided does not "prove anything," but that the court [u]has ruled presently [/u]that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Are they really? Well, contrary to what you seem to claim here, it is debateable.

Edited February 25, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790309' date='Feb 24 2009, 12:39 PM']Sure there is truth. Given your obvious hatred of Uzbeks and your overt Russian nationalism I doubt you will take a Polish Logician seriously but his work was of great importance.

[url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/[/url][/quote]

lame.

[quote]meaningful to the individual[/quote]

Says who? You? You continue to say, "Oh well that is not true because that is your personal beliefs. blah. blah. blah." But here you are making claims that "life is only meaningful if it is meaningful to the individual who lives it." You can't prove that, but yet you claim it as if it is just "truth."

Second of all, you say it is wrong to block people from living "meaningful lives." It really depends on what a "meaningful life" is. If it is what you say it is and the state should do what you say they should then... If someone believes their life only has meaning if they kill somebody then we are wrong to deny them legally the right to do that. Afterall, we let the soldiers do it. Why not let Joe kill Susie if he thinks it is going to give his life "meaning." Or how about if someone only is going to find themselves living a meaningful life if they are committing acts of terrorism? Should that be allowed too? Why not? Afterall, as you said, "It is wrong to use state law to block people from leading [i]meaningful lives[/i]..."

Wouldn't want the child molester to not have a "meaningful life" ... might as well make it legal, eh?

[quote]Sure, and individuals who want to marry someone of another race have the same rights as everyone else, they are just as free to marry and have children wth someone of the same race.[/quote]

I wasn't talking about people of another race. I was talking about people who suffer from SSA, which is why I said, "people who suffer from SSA."

[quote]Your free to beleive that, but why take that personal beleif and try to force it on others?[/quote]

Why take the personal belief that homosexual acts and homosexual civil unions violate the dignity of the human person and violate marriage and "force it on others" ?

The same reason Martin Luther King Jr., continued to try to "force" his beliefs on our country.

Because it is right, and because the acts which are happening now are harming people and our society. When you know something is right and while the "wrong" is harming people, you have a duty as a good citizen and as a Christian to work hard to change those wrongs.

[quote]you're lame [/quote]

I won't deny it, however admitedly not as lame as your comments.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790556' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:04 PM']According to the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunatly for you your Church is not the foundation of our secular state.[/quote]

No, the Church is not the foundation of the secular state. When we go into the voting booths though, we don't cease to be members of the Church.

You're trying to argue that we should keep our "faith" and our "politics" seperate. That we should be two differet people. Believe one thing publically and another privately. That boat don't float. What we believe as "right" privately we are going to believe as "right" publically and we have every right to do so, in fact the law says we should.

We should, as Citizens, stand up for the common good and vote and do what we believe as right. We have a duty to be politically active. We have a duty to register, to lobby, and to educate candidates and elected officials, and to speak up on these issues which affect the common good of society.

Civil unions and homosexual relationships, whether you want to admit it or not, affect the common good society. And we have a right and a duty to make work toward the common good of society, and in this case it means voting to deny homosexual civil unions.

[quote]If you cannot present an objective argument demonstrating the sacrosanct nature of marriage and one that is in line with what the Church calls a "sacrament" then you have no right, in a secular government, to try and use the lagal system to coerce other members of the population to conform to your religious faith.[/quote]

We are not trying to use the political system to force all of America to believe in Jesus Christ.

We can and should though keep people (and society) with in the bounds of moral behavior, even if unwillingly.

Martin Luther King, Jr. observed, "the law can't make my brother love me, but it can keep him from lynching me."

We have the right and duty to vote in accord with our conscience to promote the common good of society, which is to stay with in moral bounds.

Edited February 25, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1791008' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:01 AM']I think you have it backwards. Its not that the state in and of itself is secular. You can't say 'you can't vote for law X because your voting on religious grounds and the state is secular'. The government and the state is representative of the people. If the people want religious laws in place - thats fine if they can vote it in (as long as we're not talking about a constitutional issues...). People can vote based on their religion. They can vote based on anything they want - objective facts, religious reasons, racial reasons, you name it. Thats how the democracy works.[/quote]

Amen.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1791006' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:00 AM']AGain what form of government? Your listing off idea's. I said what form of government.

Also its not a section of the population. The majority of American's believe in a higher power, a creator of the universe. The government can not, nor should appease every single person simply because its impossible. The government should do the will of the people and the will of the people want laws based on christian thinking. YOur stating that the government should base their laws on your beliefs, but not ours. There government should base itself off of the people's beliefs, no matter what they are.[/quote]

I don't believe the government [b][u]should [/u][/b]do the will of the people (they should do what is in harmony with natural law and the law of God), [b]however,[/b] no matter what I think, it is the case. [b]The government [u]does do [/u]the will of the people. [/b] In a governemtanl system where rules are chosen by elections, the rulers will reflect the moral values of the people, or of those among them who can exert the most pressure on the electoral process. If the moral values of the people decline, then so will the values of their rulers. They find ways to subvert - or they will simply ignore - the checks and balances of the constitution (which, furthermore, is not flawless either) in order to impose the kind of governement they want.

The governement should base the laws on natural law, however because of the way our government works it does not. Which means, our governement only reflects that which is in accord with natural law as we influence it to.

And despite what Hassan argues, we do have a right to influence it to reflect natural law and we should do so for the good of society, as natural law respects the dignity of the human person and promotes its well being. The system itself tells us we have this right, and our Christian faith encourages us to acknowledge it and run with it.

* Note, I make the distinction between "should" and "does" because it is important to make it. By saying it "should" do the will of the people we say that morality should be legislated (i.e. abortion is ok if the people say it is ok), which is not how it should be. Majorities can be wrong. *

Edited February 25, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790549' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:57 PM']I don't care what the structure of marriage is so long as all the parties involved are adults concenting to the arrangment. That would not include "human-animal" marriages as an animal has no was to concent to such an arrangment.[/quote]


who are you to force your opinions on other people through the federal government? Human-animal marriages have happened in some cultures (not that it should even matter). Equal rights for everyone, means [i]everyone[/i].

You missed all of the points. Essentially, why have these rights in the first place and/or why not give them to everyone right now since equality means everyone.


[quote name='track2004' post='1790609' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:37 PM']Marriage in the state's view is essentially just a contract, right. You sign a piece of paper saying that you and your wife or husband are going to go this together. So all the crazy forms of marriage you were talking about don't work because (1) kids, animals, etc. can't enter into a contract and (2) generally more than 2 people can't enter into a contract.

Contract law says animals cannot enter into a contract, period. They can't manifest assent. Doesn't happen. No way. No how. No one can marry an animal (besides, you know, humans).

Contract law says minors can only sign voidable contracts. It's a technicality, but it means kids wouldn't be able to marry. Just like now. Kids can't marry.

Contracts can be restricted to be between two people. You can't marry a corporation (even though it gets treated like a person under the law). Two corporations can't marry (they can merge but that's different, mostly). It is generally hard to get more than two people (or other entities) to manifest mutual assent (the basis for contract law) because Party 6 will have a problem with Party 1's terms even though Parties 2 thru 5 are cool.

Contract law is based on the idea that if two people agree to something then they should be able to do it. You want to sell your house to me for $20, we can sign the papers and we're good. You want to do my (your old) lawn work and charge me $100 and hour, if I agree, we're good. You want to do anything short of something illegal and we're good. So why does contract law bar me from marring a girl? No other contract requires anything about the gender of the parties. And doesn't basing something on gender feel kind of arbitrary.

I'm an adult, I want to enter into a contract with another adult, what's so wrong with that? Under the rest of current normal contract law, nothing. Under current marriage laws, something.[/quote]


I'm sorry but this argument (gay marriage in general) is about the right to change laws, you cant justify your side of the argument by using other laws which can just as easily be changed in favor of "equality". ie: everything you said is standing in the way of me marrying 4 women, my mom, and my cat collectively. This is unfair. Who are you to stand up and cry equality and then deny it to me? My love is just as good as your love!

Dont you see? Justification of a relationship has to come from the relationship itself, not from the government. Either all relationships are truly equal (and therefore none are) and EVERYONE gets rights in a crazy ridiculous rights bonanza, or certain groups ARE special, different, deserve to be encouraged above the rest.

[havok579257]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1791195' date='Feb 25 2009, 05:08 AM']So abortion should be legal?[/quote]


Abortion is legal, correct? Right now its the will of the people of this country to have abortion legal. Hence why abortion is legal. Its is up to us pro-lifer's to convince the majority of America that abortion is wrong and it should be illegal. Once we get the majority of American's to think this way, it will be illegal. That's the beauty of democracy. Once the will of the people change, the laws will change to accomidate the will of the people.

[rkwright]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1791220' date='Feb 25 2009, 07:55 AM']Nothing is "consitutional" when the rights of the human person and their dignity are being violated. In the case of sodomy, the dignity of the human person is violated.

I just want to point out that it is [u]lame[/u] to use a single case to "prove" that they are unconstitutional.

The court is suppose to define what is constitutional and not, and should be the final word. The truth of the matter is though that the court messes up and legally covers things which, in fact, are not constitutional.

Lawrence v. Johnson does not prove that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. It just proves that the court thinks so at the moment.

The court has also thought the slaveholder's right to property sclipsed and subsumed the slave's right to freedom. (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856)

The court also said that employers' right to contract eclipsed and subsumed the workers' rights to humane conditions and hours. (Lochner v. New York, 1905)

The court also sanctioned segregation. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896)

The court also institutionalized child labor (Hammer v. Dagenhart, 1918)

The court case you provided does not "prove anything," but that the court [u]has ruled presently [/u]that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Are they really? Well, contrary to what you seem to claim here, it is debateable.[/quote]

This is sorta an aside, and you can ignore it since it doesn't pertain to the topic... but I don't agree with your idea that "its not unconstitutional, its just what the court thinks right now..."

I think thats flawed for two reasons.

First off is this idea that the constitution is some objective be-all document. Its just a law and is interpreted by the Supreme Court. I don't think people can say the constitution objectively protects X and any holding that says otherwise is just what someone thinks.

Secondly, the problem lies in authority for interpretation. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret what the constitution says and that determines what is constitutional or not. Their word is final on the issue. So for example, in the Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court has stated that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. You can't say "actually no, sodomy laws are constitutional and your thinking is just off for the moment". Its like your saying "I am the authority on what is constitutional and what is not - no matter what the Supreme Court says"

To be clear the Supreme Court can be wrong. For example the Supreme Court has been wrong in many of the cases you cited. Most of us will agree that the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe v. Wade - but that doesn't mean that abortions are unconstitutional. Abortions are constitutional - end of story. We can work to change that because we believe that abortions should be unconstitutional.

I think people hold the constitution as a document up to this standard that it is objectively right or wrong and that creates this idea that "the supreme court must be wrong because the constitution says this..." The supreme court tells us what the constitution says - thats their job.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1791334' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:19 PM']who are you to force your opinions on other people through the federal government? Human-animal marriages have happened in some cultures (not that it should even matter). Equal rights for everyone, means [i]everyone[/i].[/quote]

The state can protect an individual's rights up to the point those rights infringe on another beings rights. Obviously a marriage in which all parties do not consent to the relationship would be an infringment on another's rights and would not be allowed. That is mannifestly different from restricting another individuals rights because your "sacred" book says so. A homosexual couple does not infring on your rights in any way, a goat, however, cannot consent to a relationship.

[quote]You missed all of the points. Essentially, why have these rights in the first place and/or why not give them to everyone right now since equality means everyone.[/quote]

No, I undestood your point. And to an extent I agree with you. An individual who says gay marriage ought to be allowed but claims polygamous relationships should not be acknowledged is being a bit hypocritical. I, however, am accecpt where the position leads. The crieria I laid down are not arbitrarydictations from the sky, they follow just fine from the assumptions of a secular state based on the maximum allowable liberty of the individual.





[quote]I'm sorry but this argument (gay marriage in general) is about the right to change laws, you cant justify your side of the argument by using other laws which can just as easily be changed in favor of "equality". ie: everything you said is standing in the way of me marrying 4 women, my mom, and my cat collectively. This is unfair. Who are you to stand up and cry equality and then deny it to me? My love is just as good as your love![/quote]

If you want to marry your mother (and she wants to marry you) that is your, disturbing, right. A cat, cannot consent to such a relationship, nor can a child.

[quote]Dont you see? Justification of a relationship has to come from the relationship itself, not from the government.[/quote]

Then why do you car what relationships the government allows?

[quote]Either all relationships are truly equal (and therefore none are)[/quote]

That simply is senseless
[quote]and EVERYONE gets rights in a crazy ridiculous rights bonanza, or certain groups ARE special, different, deserve to be encouraged above the rest.[/quote]


Fine, but you need to demonstrate why some relationships deserve sanction and others don't with something mor substantive than the levitical dictates of a jelous tribal God or the claims of an eccentric Roman citizen.

[Hassan]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1791260' date='Feb 25 2009, 10:26 AM']I don't believe the government [b][u]should [/u][/b]do the will of the people (they should do what is in harmony with natural law and the law of God), [b]however,[/b] no matter what I think, it is the case. [b]The government [u]does do [/u]the will of the people. [/b] In a governemtanl system where rules are chosen by elections, the rulers will reflect the moral values of the people, or of those among them who can exert the most pressure on the electoral process. If the moral values of the people decline, then so will the values of their rulers. They find ways to subvert - or they will simply ignore - the checks and balances of the constitution (which, furthermore, is not flawless either) in order to impose the kind of governement they want.

The governement should base the laws on natural law, however because of the way our government works it does not. Which means, our governement only reflects that which is in accord with natural law as we influence it to.

And despite what Hassan argues, we do have a right to influence it to reflect natural law and we should do so for the good of society, as natural law respects the dignity of the human person and promotes its well being. The system itself tells us we have this right, and our Christian faith encourages us to acknowledge it and run with it.

* Note, I make the distinction between "should" and "does" because it is important to make it. By saying it "should" do the will of the people we say that morality should be legislated (i.e. abortion is ok if the people say it is ok), which is not how it should be. Majorities can be wrong. *[/quote]


Can you demonstrate the reality of the natural law?

[Justified Saint]

People here are getting pretty close to espousing a view of "popular sovereignty" that was defeated by Lincoln's Republicanism about 150 years ago. Might want to catch up with the times.

Anyway, did anyone see Bill Maher's presentation for Best Documentary at the Oscars? Talk about a buffoon. He was so busy making irreverent remarks and plugging his anti-religion film (which was NOT nominated), that he nearly announced the winner before he had even named the nominees. What a vain man.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1791369' date='Feb 25 2009, 01:35 PM']This is sorta an aside, and you can ignore it since it doesn't pertain to the topic... but I don't agree with your idea that "its not unconstitutional, its just what the court thinks right now..."

I think thats flawed for two reasons.

First off is this idea that the constitution is some objective be-all document. Its just a law and is interpreted by the Supreme Court. I don't think people can say the constitution objectively protects X and any holding that says otherwise is just what someone thinks.

Secondly, the problem lies in authority for interpretation. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret what the constitution says and that determines what is constitutional or not. Their word is final on the issue. So for example, in the Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court has stated that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. You can't say "actually no, sodomy laws are constitutional and your thinking is just off for the moment". Its like your saying "I am the authority on what is constitutional and what is not - no matter what the Supreme Court says"[/quote]

I am not the authority on what is constitutional, however, I don't agree that sodomy or certainly abortion (which you say is) is constitutional. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret what is constitutional and what is not, however they also have the ability to cover things with law which should not be covered by law, like abortion. The Supreme Court, as can be seen from those cases, does not always interpret the constitution correctly, as we can see now looking back on those cases and studying the Constitution.

[quote]To be clear the Supreme Court can be wrong. For example the Supreme Court has been wrong in many of the cases you cited. Most of us will agree that the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe v. Wade - but that doesn't mean that abortions are unconstitutional. Abortions are constitutional - end of story. We can work to change that because we believe that abortions should be unconstitutional.[/quote]

I see what you are saying. Ok.

[quote]I think people hold the constitution as a document up to this standard that it is objectively right or wrong and that creates this idea that "the supreme court must be wrong because the constitution says this..." The supreme court tells us what the constitution says - thats their job.[/quote]

I see.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1791426' date='Feb 25 2009, 03:40 PM']Can you demonstrate the reality of the natural law?[/quote]

Do you know of a society - even a pagan, barbarian society - where theft is seen as good?

Do you know of a society - even a pagan, barbarian society - where committing the act of murder is viewed as good?

Do you know of a society as a whole where cheating on your wife is viewed by the common people of that society as good and should be encouraged?

How about lying? Does any society promote the idea that lying is a good thing and people should do it all the time?

There is a law - which all men know. It is natural. We do not steal. We do not kill. We do not commit adultry. We don't lie. We understand, whether we are barbarians or a civilized people, that there is right and that there is wrong. Natural law is a reality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790978' date='Feb 24 2009, 11:40 PM']lol, I'd love to see your statistical data as to what "pretty much" every human being in history beleived marriage to be[/quote]
In every human society in history, marriage was regarded as between man and woman, and children/family were considered part of the deal.
Demanding some statistical opinion poll data for every person that ever lived is just sophomoric, and lame.

[quote]No.

"It is for that reason that marriage is sacred and worthy of society's recognition."

That is a theological claim, or derivitive or your theology.[/quote]
If you regard the procreation of new human beings and their upbringing as no more important or worthy to society than masturbation, well, then that's your problem.

However, there is absolutely no reason your nihilistic views are more deserving of influencing the law than our own.

[quote]I never said they did. The dispute here is a law which blocks a certian subset of the population from receiving the same legal recognition and finansial benefits as other citizens[/quote]
The law [i]blocks[/i] homosexuals from nothing.
People of a homosexual persuasion are not blocked from receiving any legal or financial benefits that a straight single person enjoys.
There is no reason I should receive any additional legal or financial benefits that I don't currently have if I decided to hook up with another man in a sodomistic "relationship."

But when I get married, I would like to have these benefits to help ease the burdens of raising children.
Politically-incorrect as it may be, the family (man, woman and children) is fundamental to human society, while sodomy is not.

[quote]They are not asking YOU to see it as marriage, they are asking the state to. They are simply asking for the same recognitin that heterosexuals may receive in the eyes of the state[/quote]
The state is not anymore required to recognize acts of mutual buggery as a "marriage" than I am.
Since politically, it is up to the people of the respective states who make such decisions, the people have made their decision.

The "gay" lobby has no right to demand political power over the rest of us.