Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 2)

Yes, a spiritual bond can exist between people who who not and will become one organic principle. However, in marriage the spiritual dimension is only one part of the total matrix that constitutes the "marriage".

No.

The core of the argument is that bodily union of spouses becomes a two-in-one flesh union. They become a single organic principle. This is not possible with any other type of sexual act, including an act with three or more people.

No.

The core of the argument is that bodily union of spouses becomes a two-in-one flesh union. They become a single organic principle. This is not possible with any other type of sexual act, including an act with three or more people.

There are several things at stake.

For myself, the most important is how we choose to organize society and govern ourselves.

The Founders argued that we are endowed with unalienable rights. In other words, there are natural laws that we are bound to follow, laws that we ourselves do not make up.

So we're bound, for example, to not murder.

Then there are positive laws which we do design ourselves. For example, it is a good that there are laws against speeding. But why? Is there something intrinsically wrong about speeding? Of course not. But there is something intrinsically wrong about murdering someone with reckless driving. So the positive law, relies on the natural law as it's principle foundation.

What were at risk of is becoming a society in which there is no principle foundation of natural law. We then become depended strictly on positive law.

The problem then is that it is possible to justify any law whatsoever. To take an extreme example, you could pass a law that says that all green eyed people ought to be killed. And if you rely soley on positive law I don't see how you could argue against it from a moral point of view. At that point, we govern ourselves according to power and not principle.

That's what's at stake with this as well as other social/value issues.

There are several things at stake.

For myself, the most important is how we choose to organize society and govern ourselves.

The Founders argued that we are endowed with unalienable rights. In other words, there are natural laws that we are bound to follow, laws that we ourselves do not make up.

So we're bound, for example, to not murder.

Then there are positive laws which we do design ourselves. For example, it is a good that there are laws against speeding. But why? Is there something intrinsically wrong about speeding? Of course not. But there is something intrinsically wrong about murdering someone with reckless driving. So the positive law, relies on the natural law as it's principle foundation.

What were at risk of is becoming a society in which there is no principle foundation of natural law. We then become depended strictly on positive law.

The problem then is that it is possible to justify any law whatsoever. To take an extreme example, you could pass a law that says that all green eyed people ought to be killed. And if you rely soley on positive law I don't see how you could argue against it from a moral point of view. At that point, we govern ourselves according to power and not principle.

That's what's at stake with this as well as other social/value issues.

There are several things at stake.

For myself, the most important is how we choose to organize society and govern ourselves.

The Founders argued that we are endowed with unalienable rights. In other words, there are natural laws that we are bound to follow, laws that we ourselves do not make up.

So we're bound, for example, to not murder.

Then there are positive laws which we do design ourselves. For example, it is a good that there are laws against speeding. But why? Is there something intrinsically wrong about speeding? Of course not. But there is something intrinsically wrong about murdering someone with reckless driving. So the positive law, relies on the natural law as it's principle foundation.

What were at risk of is becoming a society in which there is no principle foundation of natural law. We then become depended strictly on positive law.

The problem then is that it is possible to justify any law whatsoever. To take an extreme example, you could pass a law that says that all green eyed people ought to be killed. And if you rely soley on positive law I don't see how you could argue against it from a moral point of view. At that point, we govern ourselves according to power and not principle.

That's what's at stake with this as well as other social/value issues.

That indeed has happened in the past, and I'm sure we could both come up with examples, but it's never been the norm. The norm has always been between one man and one woman.

ok this might seem a bit off -topic  but is marriage a right.??   how so??

If it's not a right, then it can't be restricting someone "rights"   but if it is a right>>>.???

when did marriage become a right and back to my other comment there have always been rules as to who, whom or what you can marry... is that violating my rights then

Again, I would say the norms have remained the same.

But regardless, the states have always regulated marriage laws. The question here is whether marriage defined as between one man and one woman is discriminatory.

George makes the case that it is not, since the unique relationship of one man and one woman in marriage can be considered to be a special class and thus protected by the 14th amendment.

I'm really trying to understand what you are saying here, are you saying that a male/female marriage isn't the "norm" since it's only been like that for 2,000 years

Again, I would say the norms have remained the same.

But regardless, the states have always regulated marriage laws. The question here is whether marriage defined as between one man and one woman is discriminatory.

George makes the case that it is not, since the unique relationship of one man and one woman in marriage can be considered to be a special class and thus protected by the 14th amendment.

Here's the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were appealing to natural law in claiming that we are endowed with unalienable rights.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Here's the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were appealing to natural law in claiming that we are endowed with unalienable rights.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Our country was founded in a creed. That creed can be found in the Declaration of Independence.

The Founders appealed to natural law for the legitimacy of what they were doing. They were correct, and I believe that is why the experiment has been successful up to now.