'Traditional Marriage'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As far as Christians are concerned, 1 man and 1 one wife is a traditional marriage. As, I’ve posted above. As far as the US is concerned, 1 man and 1 woman. We aren’t talking about the traditions of some far off place.

Christians don’t believe in the bible or recognize that God actually commanded polygamy in the old testament?
[/quote]

No, Christians believe the law, morality, and commandments were made whole with Christ. Previous customs were tolerated, though perhaps altered to be more equitable without causing chaos. Christ’s comment on divorce is an example. Had you read that part, well, you would’ve understood.

If bringing some semblance of peace in Iraq is difficult now, imagine if we forced the western norms, laws, and ethics upon them.

102

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Why not focus on fixing this and providing these benefits for those that have a civil union? Wouldn’t that be much less controversial?[/quote]

Yes, and I think that Obama is taking this approach. Politically it is more palatable and I agree with it.

Here is a more complete excerpt from the supreme court ruling:

[quote]As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish - with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life - an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own - and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family - constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation - like a person’s race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. [/quote]

The court actually holds that gays are entitled to the term “marriage” as a matter of equal dignity and respect. I see their point, but as a practical matter I’m willing to concede the term to the fundamentalists. I don’t care about dignity and respect, what I really care about is equal civil rights:

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, Christians believe the law, morality, and commandments were made whole with Christ. Previous customs were tolerated, though perhaps altered to be more equitable without causing chaos.[/quote]

I like how you dismiss direct commandments from God in the old testament as “previous customs”. God very clearly commanded people to practice polygamy. It wasn’t just a cultural issue, it was a divine mandate.

Again, the point is that marriage in the bible is hardly “traditional” as fundamentalists like to claim. Their own holy book shows examples of God sanctioning multiple forms of marriage.

104

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, Christians believe the law, morality, and commandments were made whole with Christ. Previous customs were tolerated, though perhaps altered to be more equitable without causing chaos.

I like how you dismiss direct commandments from God in the old testament as “previous customs”. God very clearly commanded people to practice polygamy. It wasn’t just a cultural issue, it was a divine mandate.

Again, the point is that marriage in the bible is hardly “traditional” as fundamentalists like to claim. Their own holy book shows examples of God sanctioning multiple forms of marriage.[/quote]

But not gay marriage. Maybe you should work on legalizing the others first?

105

And, the humorous side-show of having a homosexual, atheist, divorcee preaching how Christians are supposed to read and understand the bible, isn’t lost on me.

106

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If I were one day to declare myself gay, my legal abilities and rights DO NOT CHANGE. I remain subject to the exact same laws applied exactly the same way regardless. No legal judgments or the application of laws changed based on a person’s sexuality. There are no differences in punishment or benefit that are legally decided based in any part based on a person’s sexuality.

You’re forgetting the little detail about not being able to marry the person you love if you are gay.

If there were, for example, laws that applied or were enforced based on a genetic observable marker for homosexuality, then it would be similar to the struggle for black rights.

You’re back to arguing equal treatment only on the basis of genetics rather than choice.

In any case, I have news for you. There are genetic markers for homosexuality, so by your own admission it is the same struggle.

All the same laws apply to all religions.

You totally missed the point, which was that people have the legal right to choose their form of worship. What if it was illegal to be Christian in this country?[/quote]

No one has the “right” to marry the one they love, some do have the privilege.

So are you saying it is a choice?

There is no law making homosexuality illegal last I checked so I don’t see your point with religion.

My point with religion is that laws can be made to restrict and regulate your choices. Religions are not permitted to do as they wish despite what they believe or choose. They are all held to the same legal standard.

If one church believes in doing something against the majority moral standard, say steeling, it is not discriminating against that religion to make laws against stealing. As long as the law applies the same way to everyone regardless of religion.

Now, if that law said, if you sign up as religion X then you can’t steal, while everyone else can, then it would discriminate against religion X.

You are not classified under a different legal standard for being gay. The government doesn’t know or care whether you are gay or not. They do not ask you to sign up as a specific sexual orientation.

The civil rights movement and the fight for homosexual privileges are 2 entirely different things. Blacks and whites had different sets of rules. They were legally labeled one way or the other. There are no separate rules for homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. Today, you are not legally labeled by your sexuality.

You can argue for homosexual privileges all you want, but don’t compare that to the civil rights movement because they aren’t even close.

You can also argue whether the amendments are good or bad (I personally disagree with “prop 8s”), but there is still one universal legal standard for everyone regardless of sexuality.

107

[quote]dhickey wrote:
But not gay marriage. Maybe you should work on legalizing the others first?[/quote]

This thread isn’t about the bible condoning gay marriage.

It is about fundamentalist Christians using the bible as a platform for the argument that “traditional marriage” is a 5,000 year-old unchanging institution exclusively and solely sanctioned by God.

108

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, Christians believe the law, morality, and commandments were made whole with Christ. Previous customs were tolerated, though perhaps altered to be more equitable without causing chaos.

I like how you dismiss direct commandments from God in the old testament as “previous customs”. God very clearly commanded people to practice polygamy. It wasn’t just a cultural issue, it was a divine mandate.

Again, the point is that marriage in the bible is hardly “traditional” as fundamentalists like to claim. Their own holy book shows examples of God sanctioning multiple forms of marriage.[/quote]

God also permitted divorce at the time…which goes against the original plan…and isn’t cemented as moral law until Christ.

109

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No, Christians believe the law, morality, and commandments were made whole with Christ. Previous customs were tolerated, though perhaps altered to be more equitable without causing chaos.

I like how you dismiss direct commandments from God in the old testament as “previous customs”. God very clearly commanded people to practice polygamy. It wasn’t just a cultural issue, it was a divine mandate.

Again, the point is that marriage in the bible is hardly “traditional” as fundamentalists like to claim. Their own holy book shows examples of God sanctioning multiple forms of marriage.[/quote]

Show me in the bible where a marriage consisted of not “one man and one woman”.

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, the humorous side-show of having a homosexual, atheist, divorcee preaching how Christians are supposed to read and understand the bible, isn’t lost on me.[/quote]

If I’m missing something about the bible clearly stating that God condoned and even commanded polygamy, please point it out.

Didn’t think so.

111

[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
But not gay marriage. Maybe you should work on legalizing the others first?

This thread isn’t about the bible condoning gay marriage.

It is about fundamentalist Christians using the bible as a platform for the argument that “traditional marriage” is a 5,000 year-old unchanging institution exclusively and solely sanctioned by God.[/quote]

If you’re saying Christians didn’t realize polygamy had existed, does exist, you’re being ignorant.

112

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No one has the “right” to marry the one they love, some do have the privilege.[/quote]

Call it what you want, the point is that gays are treated differently than heteros when it comes to their union being recognized by the federal government.

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

What if Christians weren’t allowed to marry, but Muslims were?

113

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If I were one day to declare myself gay, my legal abilities and rights DO NOT CHANGE. I remain subject to the exact same laws applied exactly the same way regardless. No legal judgments or the application of laws changed based on a person’s sexuality. There are no differences in punishment or benefit that are legally decided based in any part based on a person’s sexuality.

You’re forgetting the little detail about not being able to marry the person you love if you are gay.

If there were, for example, laws that applied or were enforced based on a genetic observable marker for homosexuality, then it would be similar to the struggle for black rights.

You’re back to arguing equal treatment only on the basis of genetics rather than choice.

In any case, I have news for you. There are genetic markers for homosexuality, so by your own admission it is the same struggle.

All the same laws apply to all religions.

You totally missed the point, which was that people have the legal right to choose their form of worship. What if it was illegal to be Christian in this country?

No one has the “right” to marry the one they love, some do have the privilege.

So are you saying it is a choice?

There is no law making homosexuality illegal last I checked so I don’t see your point with religion.

My point with religion is that laws can be made to restrict and regulate your choices. Religions are not permitted to do as they wish despite what they believe or choose. They are all held to the same legal standard.

If one church believes in doing something against the majority moral standard, say steeling, it is not discriminating against that religion to make laws against stealing. As long as the law applies the same way to everyone regardless of religion.

Now, if that law said, if you sign up as religion X then you can’t steal, while everyone else can, then it would discriminate against religion X.

You are not classified under a different legal standard for being gay. The government doesn’t know or care whether you are gay or not. They do not ask you to sign up as a specific sexual orientation.

The civil rights movement and the fight for homosexual privileges are 2 entirely different things. Blacks and whites had different sets of rules. They were legally labeled one way or the other. There are no separate rules for homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. Today, you are not legally labeled by your sexuality.

You can argue for homosexual privileges all you want, but don’t compare that to the civil rights movement because they aren’t even close.

You can also argue whether the amendments are good or bad (I personally disagree with “prop 8s”), but there is still one universal legal standard for everyone regardless of sexuality.[/quote]

This may not compare the the civil rights movement of the 60’s and 70’s but it is still a civil rights issue. Civil rights isn’t just about blacks and women. Actually, this would count as a seperate rule between hetero and homo. Heteros can marry, homos can’t. If someone is labeled as “gay” at work, in the community, school, and so on that puts a spotlight on him and will get treated differently by many.

114

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And, the humorous side-show of having a homosexual, atheist, divorcee preaching how Christians are supposed to read and understand the bible, isn’t lost on me.

If I’m missing something about the bible clearly stating that God condoned and even commanded polygamy, please point it out.

Didn’t think so.[/quote]

I already have…Are you completely incapable of reading?

115

[quote]Sloth wrote:
God also permitted divorce at the time…which goes against the original plan…and isn’t cemented as moral law until Christ. [/quote]

So you admit that marriage as commanded by God has changed over time rather than being a 5,000 year old unchanging institution?

116

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Show me in the bible where a marriage consisted of not “one man and one woman”.[/quote]

Read the quote provided in the original post.

117

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If you’re saying Christians didn’t realize polygamy had existed, does exist, you’re being ignorant. [/quote]

I didn’t say Christians didn’t realize polygamy existed.

I said fundamentalist Christians arguing for traditional marriage don’t recognize that polygamy was directly commanded by their God.

118

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No one has the “right” to marry the one they love, some do have the privilege.

Call it what you want, the point is that gays are treated differently than heteros when it comes to their union being recognized by the federal government.

So are you saying it is a choice?

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

There is no law making homosexuality illegal last I checked so I don’t see your point with religion.

What if Christians weren’t allowed to marry, but Muslims were?[/quote]

That isn’t the case with homosexuality. You are allowed to marry and you have exercised that right. If there were a law that said homosexuals can’t marry, then yes it would be a rights violation as homosexuals would then have a different standard. But that isn’t the case.

Is a law that outlaws cousins marrying discrimination against Muslims (even though the law is the same whether or not you are a Muslim)? That situation is similar to the struggle for homosexuals. By your logic, we shouldn’t be able to make laws regulation incest.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/12/30/kissing-cousins.aspx?gt1=43002

119

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And, the humorous side-show of having a homosexual, atheist, divorcee preaching how Christians are supposed to read and understand the bible, isn’t lost on me.

If I’m missing something about the bible clearly stating that God condoned and even commanded polygamy, please point it out.

Didn’t think so.

I already have…Are you completely incapable of reading?[/quote]

Where did you show that the bible doesn’t clearly state that God condoned and even commanded polygamy? All you said was that God changed his mind from the old testament to the new testament. Sounds like you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem.

120

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That isn’t the case with homosexuality. You are allowed to marry and you have exercised that right. If there were a law that said homosexuals can’t marry, then yes it would be a rights violation as homosexuals would then have a different standard. But that isn’t the case.[/quote]

We were talking about the right to marry the person you love, remember?

I’m talking about the legal right to choose one’s religion. People have that legal right, and it is a choice rather than a genetic predisposition. Get it?