Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Obama endorses same-sex marriage Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 18
 
 
2012-05-12 2:51 PM
in reply to: #4206296

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
TriAya - 

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.

I'd say it's a fortunate thing, and one of handful of legitimate things that the government has the right to intervene in.

The preamble to the Constitution state:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Granted this is the federal constitution, but the framers recognized that what they were doing was to help secure liberty for Posterity. That means babies.

So I think that state has a very legitimate right to be involved in the issue of marriage/family/babies.



2012-05-12 3:19 PM
in reply to: #4206320

User image

Melon Presser
52116
50005000500050005000500050005000500050002000100
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-13 3:51 AM
TriAya - 

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.

I'd say it's a fortunate thing, and one of handful of legitimate things that the government has the right to intervene in.

The preamble to the Constitution state:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Granted this is the federal constitution, but the framers recognized that what they were doing was to help secure liberty for Posterity. That means babies.

So I think that state has a very legitimate right to be involved in the issue of marriage/family/babies.

It has.

Should it? (My answer: no.)

But if so, and considering it has a legitimate claim to such right, how should those rights be specifically exercised ... by the State (federal or state, or if theoretical, some legal collective entity), and by individuals? With respect to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

2012-05-12 3:25 PM
in reply to: #4200646

User image

Expert
1158
10001002525
Chicagoland
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

Don,

I understand your two into one flesh thingy in regards to the recognition of a marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church.  My question to you is that this would exclude those who are unable to bear children, correct?  If this is the case then would the Catholic Charities organization not be allowed to arrange an adoption for a baren (sp?) couple just like they would refuse to a SSM couple.  Are we not all God's children?  I don't mean to be harsh but I find it laughable to abide by a organization's rules (and that is what the Catholic Church is, I was a member at one time) that had no problem looking away when millions were exterminated in concentration camps and innocent children were molested while the hierachy shuttled the accused to other parishes.

2012-05-12 3:36 PM
in reply to: #4206097

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 10:48 AM
TriAya - 

So far in this thread, Don, you haven't enumerated or even mentioned what they are. You've thrown out one example of a gay man that you perceive to have bullied youngsters, you've made a lot of grand but general sweeping claims, but I do know you have (or believe you have) "valid, compelling and rational reasons" and I (I'm sure many others, posting or not) would genuinely like to know what they are.

I did, my dear friend. I put it out earlier in this thread and got one response as I recall and then crickets chirping afterwards. Robert George's formulation will be the philosophical foundation if there is ever a SCOTUS case that involves gay marriage and the 14th Amendment.

I also jumped into this thread with a layman's exegesis regarding the scriptural foundation for marriage as between one man and one woman, a point that also happens to tear apart the straw man "Leviticus Shellfish Defense" that's thrown out there these days by people such as Dan Savage.  

What I haven't done is go through every point in detail. And frankly, I don't see an openness in tone here that makes me think it's worth the time. I don't perceive much if any open mindedness on the issue.

 

Don, do you seriously want us to accept Robert George's "formulation" as non-religious? 

2012-05-12 3:40 PM
in reply to: #4206296

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
TriAya - 2012-05-12 1:25 PM

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.

And why is that? Do we really need to subsidize procreation? Is procreation really something the State needs to incentivize? People will have babies, and families regardless of what the State does.

2012-05-12 3:44 PM
in reply to: #4206320

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 1:51 PM
TriAya - 

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.

I'd say it's a fortunate thing, and one of handful of legitimate things that the government has the right to intervene in.

The preamble to the Constitution state:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Granted this is the federal constitution, but the framers recognized that what they were doing was to help secure liberty for Posterity. That means babies.

So I think that state has a very legitimate right to be involved in the issue of marriage/family/babies.

I find that quite a stretch. Natural law takes care of the want to have babies. Since the country is made up of families, what is good for the country, is therefore good for families. A strong growing economy, peace, liberty, justice.... those are all good for people, people have families. The State does not have any need to be "involved" with my family... The State needs to protect my rights, and secure my country so my family can enjoy the liberties it has.



2012-05-12 3:47 PM
in reply to: #4206251

Master
2083
2000252525
Houston, TX
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 1:37 PM

I totally agree with the part of your post that I bolded, with a slight variance.

I think we'd first have to parse out that there is a transcendent reality to human existence and what the basic components of that reality are. The Founders called it a Creator, rather than God. That's fine. We can build a pluralistic civil society on that premise.

But you're right. Until that common ground gets worked out in a discussion, then it really is difficult if not impossible to come to common ground on specific issues that flow out of it.

They are basically the same thing separated only by semantics IMO.

The second part of the sentence I quoted I don't agree with. Of course I'd be thrilled if someone wanted to convert to Catholicism, but it's not necessary in order to find common ground on specific issues such as marriage.

Were my religion to instill in me that heterosexual marriage is sinful and wrong, then we would have serious problems reconciling the debate.  Some moral structure would have to be established.  So yes, agreed, catholicism wouldn't have to be agreed upon but some moral commonalities would be necessary.

2012-05-12 3:50 PM
in reply to: #4206280

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 1:08 PM

No I don't agree with Bootygirl.

In fact, it's not clear to me that states with no fault divorce laws even are issuing valid contracts any more.

A contract assumes both parties are bound by it.  If one party can render the contract null and void through no fault divorce means by simply going through a waiting period, then what exactly is the contract? What is being contracted?  

This goes beyond my understanding, so maybe a lawyer can jump in to explain. Maybe I'm missing something.

Last one...

Not only that, but then what is a common law marriage? Obviously I would not expect you to agree with common law marriages.... but then back to the point.... if SSM is against what marriage should be... then why are all the people opposed to SSM and in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning it...  not protesting to ban common law marriages, or no fault divorces, or any of the other things that go against the "sanctity" of marriage? Perhaps SSM is just where they choose to draw the line, but it seems pretty narrow focused with all the other inconsistencies out there.

2012-05-12 3:52 PM
in reply to: #4206320

Master
2083
2000252525
Houston, TX
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 2:51 PM
TriAya - 

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.

I'd say it's a fortunate thing, and one of handful of legitimate things that the government has the right to intervene in.

The preamble to the Constitution state:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Granted this is the federal constitution, but the framers recognized that what they were doing was to help secure liberty for Posterity. That means babies.

So I think that state has a very legitimate right to be involved in the issue of marriage/family/babies.

 

Posterity does not mean babies.  It means "future generations" and does not suppose upon how those future generation are accomplished, only securing their liberties.



Edited by jgaither 2012-05-12 3:53 PM
2012-05-12 7:55 PM
in reply to: #4206346

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

TeddieMao - My question to you is that this would exclude those who are unable to bear children, correct?

No, that's covered in his first sentence:

Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or are motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce).

2012-05-12 7:55 PM
in reply to: #4206355

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
mrbbrad - 

Don, do you seriously want us to accept Robert George's "formulation" as non-religious? 

Yes.



2012-05-12 8:01 PM
in reply to: #4206364

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

powerman - The State does not have any need to be "involved" with my family... 

Involved in the sense of having a stake in the success of a family rearing the next generation.

I certainly don't mean in the sense of the state overriding the natural rights of a mother and father to educate and form their children, for example.

2012-05-12 8:13 PM
in reply to: #4206368

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
jgaither - They are basically the same thing separated only by semantics IMO.

Well some people who are not deists still believe in some sort of transcendent reality that they might call a creator, or what the early Greeks called Being.  

I think that's enough to find common ground.

Some atheists might even find that acceptable to the extent that it would be a reasonable human construction from which to build a consistent ethical and moral system.

Were my religion to instill in me that heterosexual marriage is sinful and wrong, then we would have serious problems reconciling the debate.  Some moral structure would have to be established.  So yes, agreed, catholicism wouldn't have to be agreed upon but some moral commonalities would be necessary.

Well if we can agree that there is some transcendent reality to the human condition, call it God or creator or being, then we might agree that within that transcendent reality there is a moral code, call it natural law, that supersedes man's creation of that code.

So let's take one that we might all agree on. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it's often referred to as the 5th commandment: 
Though shall not murder.

Now we might not all agree on what constitutes murder, but we probably will agree that murder in the abstract sense is wrong. 
We might further agree that murder being wrong would be true even if it was claimed to be acceptable because of a democratic vote to make it so.

If we could start step by step like that, we might find that we have a lot of common ground regarding the existence of certain moral laws that we could also agree transcend and precede our making them so.

If we could do that, then we'd have tools to delve deeper in more complicated moral questions.



Edited by dontracy 2012-05-12 8:13 PM
2012-05-12 8:17 PM
in reply to: #4206373

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

powerman - Not only that, but then what is a common law marriage? Obviously I would not expect you to agree with common law marriages....

Common law marriages are valid civil marriages in states where it's legal.
There is reasonable precedent for that in places such as here in Pennsylvania with its Quaker roots for example,
although Pennsylvania raised the standard for establishing a common law marriage some ten years ago or so. 

if SSM is against what marriage should be... then why are all the people opposed to SSM and in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning it...  not protesting to ban common law marriages, or no fault divorces, or any of the other things that go against the "sanctity" of marriage? Perhaps SSM is just where they choose to draw the line, but it seems pretty narrow focused with all the other inconsistencies out there.

I agree with you.

My own opinion that it's all of one cloth is one that's not shared by everyone who opposes SSM.
I think their inconstancy makes their opposition to SSM less compelling for those they're trying to sway.



Edited by dontracy 2012-05-12 8:30 PM
2012-05-12 8:23 PM
in reply to: #4206374

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

jgaither -Posterity does not mean babies.  It means "future generations" and does not suppose upon how those future generation are accomplished, only securing their liberties.

I agree with you. Babies was a poetic way of saying it.

You're right, it brings up a valid point of exploration regarding how those future generations are developed.

In that exploration then we ought to take a look back at what has happened since some of those things that powerman brought up, and many more, have affected the generation of posterity.

Has it been good, has it been bad, has it been neutral.



Edited by dontracy 2012-05-12 8:31 PM
2012-05-12 8:40 PM
in reply to: #4206615

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 7:01 PM

powerman - The State does not have any need to be "involved" with my family... 

Involved in the sense of having a stake in the success of a family rearing the next generation.

I certainly don't mean in the sense of the state overriding the natural rights of a mother and father to educate and form their children, for example.

I don't see it the same way... all the government, the Constitution is there for is to provide the basic frame work that all can succeed from. A legal system to apply fair rule of law. Protections from unwarranted seizures, that what I earn I get to keep. A robust economy and stable fair markets so that business and consumer both can prosper.

Whether I have a family, or how I choose to raise them, or what ideals and values I instill in them... and then what they learn on their own when they choose to... that has nothing to do with the government. Not only do I not want them to... but it is simply impossible to legislate.

Sure we are in a cultural war right now, but the ink was not even dry on the Constitution before someone disagreed with another over a different value system. Not all people will agree on what course of action to take so the government has no power or right to impose some form of morality on how this "country" needs to raised. "The People" are the power behind this country and if they want to drive it over a cliff they can. The Government is not a separate entity with it's own will to live... although we are approaching that.



2012-05-12 8:41 PM
in reply to: #4206637

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 7:17 PM

powerman - Not only that, but then what is a common law marriage? Obviously I would not expect you to agree with common law marriages....

Common law marriages are valid civil marriages in states where it's legal.
There is reasonable precedent for that in places such as here in Pennsylvania with its Quaker roots for example,
although Pennsylvania raised the standard for establishing a common law marriage some ten years ago or so. 

if SSM is against what marriage should be... then why are all the people opposed to SSM and in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning it...  not protesting to ban common law marriages, or no fault divorces, or any of the other things that go against the "sanctity" of marriage? Perhaps SSM is just where they choose to draw the line, but it seems pretty narrow focused with all the other inconsistencies out there.

I agree with you.

My own opinion that it's all of one cloth is one that's not shared by everyone who opposes SSM.
I think their inconstancy makes their opposition to SSM less compelling for those they're trying to sway.

That's consistent. I disagree with it, but I can at least respect it. Other would get more respect too if they were at least consistent.

2012-05-12 8:47 PM
in reply to: #4206672

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

powerman - Whether I have a family, or how I choose to raise them, or what ideals and values I instill in them... and then what they learn on their own when they choose to... that has nothing to do with the government. Not only do I not want them to... but it is simply impossible to legislate.

I agree with you there.

For example as a citizen and therefore a fellow member of the state, I have absolutely no right to tell you which religion to raise your children in or whether to raise them with a religion at all. Plenty more examples like that, including if you want to take your children to McDonald's .

On the other hand there is a line where I do have a say as a member of the state, and you have the same say of me as a father. For example, let's say physical abuse of a child.  It's the proper role of the state to insure that does not happen.



Edited by dontracy 2012-05-12 8:48 PM
2012-05-12 8:49 PM
in reply to: #4206672

User image

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

powerman - The Government is not a separate entity with it's own will to live... although we are approaching that.

I agree with that.

We create the State. Not the other way around.

2012-05-12 8:56 PM
in reply to: #4200646

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

Why do many people think you can separate your "religious views" from your "other" views.  If you believe 2+2=4, that's going to affect a very large percentage of your opinions and decisions. If you believe in a God or not is going to affect every decision you make.  You can believe in a God and not believe others need to follow the same rules, that you should share our beliefs with others, etc.  But, it still matter 24/7.

If you believe there are a set of rules that are good for a society, then that is just how it is.  If you don't believe in a God and that you can make up the rules as you grow, mature, whatever that is what you believe.

People that believe others can separate their religious beliefs from their decisions have never actually believed in anything.

2012-05-12 9:00 PM
in reply to: #4206607

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.


2012-05-12 9:06 PM
in reply to: #4206698

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

Teejaay - And in the case that that one cannot physically perform acts of the reproductive type due to injury or paralysis?  I ask this seriously as I am curious.

I'm comfortable, and I think George is too, in respecting people's privacy in that regard.
That's consistent I think because they would still represent the normative.


But you're right. If held to a strict standard, they wouldn't meet it. 

2012-05-12 9:11 PM
in reply to: #4206629

Master
2083
2000252525
Houston, TX
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage
dontracy - 2012-05-12 8:13 PM
jgaither - They are basically the same thing separated only by semantics IMO.

Well some people who are not deists still believe in some sort of transcendent reality that they might call a creator, or what the early Greeks called Being.  

I think that's enough to find common ground.

Some atheists might even find that acceptable to the extent that it would be a reasonable human construction from which to build a consistent ethical and moral system.

Were my religion to instill in me that heterosexual marriage is sinful and wrong, then we would have serious problems reconciling the debate.  Some moral structure would have to be established.  So yes, agreed, catholicism wouldn't have to be agreed upon but some moral commonalities would be necessary.

Well if we can agree that there is some transcendent reality to the human condition, call it God or creator or being, then we might agree that within that transcendent reality there is a moral code, call it natural law, that supersedes man's creation of that code.

So let's take one that we might all agree on. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it's often referred to as the 5th commandment: 
Though shall not murder.

Now we might not all agree on what constitutes murder, but we probably will agree that murder in the abstract sense is wrong. 
We might further agree that murder being wrong would be true even if it was claimed to be acceptable because of a democratic vote to make it so.

If we could start step by step like that, we might find that we have a lot of common ground regarding the existence of certain moral laws that we could also agree transcend and precede our making them so.

If we could do that, then we'd have tools to delve deeper in more complicated moral questions.

Probably not going to agree on this one either as I don't believe in a transcendent reality.  Alternate dimensions I'll concede is POSSIBLE, but not certain.  Should you somehow be able to link the two, I'd be willing to listen as I've never read anything relating the two.

And I would disagree that murder is wrong in the general sense and most definitely in the specific sense.  It just is.  However that code is necessary to have in place for productive civil populations.  But I would call it a man made social construct and not an over reaching law of nature.

2012-05-12 9:20 PM
in reply to: #4206717

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

jgaither - Probably not going to agree on this one either as I don't believe in a transcendent reality.  Alternate dimensions I'll concede is POSSIBLE, but not certain.  Should you somehow be able to link the two, I'd be willing to listen as I've never read anything relating the two.

Maybe there's something within string theory that could show that if a string vibrates in a certain way we get the Magna Carta.

2012-05-12 10:17 PM
in reply to: #4200646

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Obama endorses same-sex marriage

Someone tell me why it keeps failing in a vote.  Again, I have no outside motive with my question, I'm just curious.  The idea of gay marriage has failed in EVERY vote......why?

Just to keep the flamers honest......I don't care who marries who.  I want to know why the measure is constantly voted down by the people....usually by a wide margin.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Obama endorses same-sex marriage Rss Feed  
 
 
of 18