Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 7)

It was also founded with the institutions of slavery, racial discrimination, and the denial of rights to women.

If the laws allowing slavery, discrimination, and denial of rights to women were founded on natual law, then were those laws correct and just? 

I believe that those laws were wrong, as hopefully you do as well.  I also believe that laws that restrict the rights of gay people to be legally married, are as unjust as laws that allowed slavery, denied the rights of women, and permitted racial discrimination.

Is that "moral relatavism", and "appeal to power", or perhaps a growing understanding by our society that such laws, no matter what their basis ( natural law, appeal to power, etc. ) are wrong and need to be changed.

to change the direction a bit...and if I need to I can revive the prop 8 thread from last week, but one of the big scare tactics that the proponents of Yes on 8 have used was that children will be taught about gay marriage in school...why is this a big deal to people.  In all honesty...there have been children books around dealing with this subject for years and years...Schools teach alternate holidays and alternate religions and we are taught to respect those people practicing that religion, even if we don't believe the same.  In social studies, we are taught all types of things that may not be in teachings with the church.  and then in life science we are taught the theory of evolution.  So why is it such a big deal that gay marriage may be touched upon.  I can assure you that they are not discussing sex.  And what an opportunity to have an informed conversation with your child when they ask you questions about what gay means.  Even if you don't agree with it, you can talk about how it isn't right in the teachings of the church, but sometimes two people of the same gender love each other.  Why is it soooooo tabooo to even mention it around kids.  is there a fear that speaking its name will some how cause the child to become gay.

but you yourself advised me to try to change the civil laws to give me the same rights...so it is the word "marriage" that would underline society?  this is what I was trying to understand before.  If you think that I should be able to live my life with my partner, but just not married to him, but with the same rights as married...but say that the act of getting married under cuts society, and causes our constitution to fail is truely a contradiction.

edit to add:  I believe murder is still illegal in Canada...the country is still there.

[sidebar]

Went out on 42nd street
That's where the elite all retreat to greet
You can see them coming from everywhere
Every kind of man and woman you will find there

There are men who love women who love men
There are women who love women every now and then
There are men who love men because they can't pretend
They are men who love women who love men

Now there are those who make love for pay
And there are those who make love anyway
Over in the bar with a bottle of scotch
There are those who would rather just watch

All the men who love women who love men
And the women who love women every now and then
There are men who love men because they can't pretend
They are men who love women who love men

There are those who make love to machines
That don't talk back and are easy to clean
And there are those who will tell you out loud
That they can only make love in a crowd

A crowd of men who love women who love men
And women who love women every now and then
There are men who love men because they can't pretend
They are men who love women who love men

In the pursuit of truth and joy
Boys will be girls and girls will be boys
But sometimes it's hard to know what to do
When you don't know who you're talking to

'cause there are men who love women who love men
There are women who love women every now and then
There are men who love men because they can't pretend
They are men who love women who love men

- Steve Goodman

 [/sidebar]

Threads like are interesting because we can have total opposite view on a subject and have a free flowing discussion which remains civil.. thanks.

For me I see marriage as a label for a man made created union.. as it stands today it is a man and a women in a "life long" commitment.. since I view this as label we have created, I think it is something that can be changed by man .. by label it is just a word, the relationship behind the word is much more important to me, the word "marriage" is just a description

First off, very impressive how you can maintain many different individual debates on the same topic all at once.

See, now, you're boiling down my marriage to ONE individual sex act, the one that resulted in Skeletor. I'm not sure which time that was, because we were having a lot of sex to try and conceive Skeletor. And I was pretty damn sick of sex by that point...

Anywho, if the sex we had that one day in early May that resulted in Skeletor is the one thing that is intrinsic to our marriage, the one thing that make our marriage 'real', what does that mean for the sex that Joe Blow and Nancy Drew had when they were drunk and not married and resulted in Little Jimmy Blow?

You see the point I've been driving at? I could theoretically have sex with and get knocked up by almost half of the Earth's population. The ability to have heterosexual sex and to potentially concieve can be achieved by nearly any man and woman combination on God's Green Earth. So why in the world is that act so tantamount to what defines marriage? Is there something about hetero marriage that elevates simple sex between a man and a woman to a "two in one flesh union"? Before we were married, was our sex just sex and then we were married, sex got upgraded to TIOFU?

Just jumping in to say that I need to tend to some other stuff. I'll be back later.

Thanks everyone!

It's been a long time since I took college philosophy courses, but if I recall them correctly....

First, you have God's Law.  God, as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, is the only "being" capable of clearly and wholly understanding His Law.

Next, you have Natural Law.  Natural Law is defined as having validity everywhere because it is set by nature.  If I remember correctly (this is where I get a little fuzzy), Natural Law is considered a subset of, and approximation of, God's Law.

Underneath (if you're building a hierarchy), is Man's Law (sorry ladies, not intended to be sexist here).  These are commonly broken down into sub-categories like mores (thou shalt not kill), and written laws like embezzling or treason is a crime.

Man (and woman, though maybe less so than man ) is an imperfect creature, as such, we can only approximate what we understand to be Natural Law, and, to a less extent, God's Law (Bibles, Torahs, and Korans notwithstanding).  That very imperfection and approximation means that we'll likely get it wrong from time to time, and adjust those approximations as we grow and mature as a race.  To use an example from earlier in the thread, I think we all agree, today, that slavery is wrong.  So wrong, in fact, I would argue that we're past the written law stage and well into calling it a more.  But 400 years ago, that wasn't the case.  Heck, it was legal in this country 200 years ago.  We change because we learn - and that's a good thing.

So, my question is, are we experiencing the same kind of thing with regards to homosexuality and gay marriage?  And if we are, is the burden of proof on the side that benefits from the change, or the side that resists the change?  I believe that the lack of any conclusive evidence that allowing gay marriage actually causes harm means the burden of proof should be on the side that claims it's "bad" or demeans the institution of marriage.

I'm wrong a lot though, and certainly could be here. 

I'm so sorry - I just heard the news myself and thought of you.  I'm still shaking my head - I don't get what the big deal is, but hopefully it will get sorted out someday in the near future. 

p.s. - Massachusetts is pretty this time of year........maybe a move is in order?   

I am truly frustrated and profoundly saddened that the same sort of measure passed here in FL  I cannot begin to imagine how you must feel, my heart goes out to you.

Massachusetts, especially the western part, is great all times of the year.  2 hours from Boston, 3 hours from NYC.  30 minutes from a small city or the middle of nowhere.  Less than 2 hours from the ocean or from VT skiing and riding.  The '5 colleges' are nearby (Umass, Smith, Mt Holyoke , Amherst and Hampshire) and Northampton is a pretty tolerant place too.

Plus Mass has one of the lowest divorce rates and one of the highest rates of literacy in the union.  And (from what I can tell) gay marriage hasnt really effected us at all in the commonwealth that I can tell, expect divorce lawyers now have a new potential pool of clients lol.

But seriously, I am sorry.  Of all the places in the US, I thought Cali would be a no brainer.  I read George Takei's statement today. very sad, to be so inspired and so let down at the same time.

http://www.georgetakei.com/ 

i'm simply heartbroken about this.  there are some explanations and opinions as to 'what happened' here in CA - food for thought below. it should be noted that No on Prop 8 refuses to concede - ballots are still being counted.  Let there be hope. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/05/5907

http://andre...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homophobia

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/11/gay_rights_in_california.html